Dubai International to make bid for Liverpool FC

[Rashid]

Keep the pressure on lads.. and let there be no mistake. Just because Gillett is silent it doesn't mean he isn't a cunt too, he is. Just the lesser of two evils from what I've heard.

As far as I know as it stands.

1. Deal agreed with Wachovia 'just for the cost of the club and last summers transfers'.
2. Hicks and Gillett trying to get extra money so they can start on the stadium but banks want a deposit which the two owners are unwilling to give - wrangling still going on.
3. Moores and Parry at the same time have objected to the debt going on the club as per the "sale agreement".

DIC lurking offering everyone a way out - which at the moment is being resisted but a tempting offer for all concerned...

LFC on a knife edge, it is just a matter of days though.

[Jimthered]

I
Hicks wants to secure the debt against the clubs assets like Glazier did at the scum,(something they promised wouldnt happen)
Mores and Parry and possibly Gillette are unhappy with this scenario, and gillette may refuse to sign up for the new loan

Mores and/or Parry may have legal documentation that could prevent the debt being loaded onto the club

Dont know where that came from, but there is nothing in the offer that states that. As far as I can see the only three things that were in the offer are

Kop is fully aware of the current requirements of Liverpool and accordingly,
Kop:

• intends to build, as soon as reasonably practicable, the proposed new
60,000 seat stadium at Stanley Park for which the Club has already received
planning permission and to facilitate the financing of its construction;

• is committed to an annual budget for player transfers and is able to
supplement this should Liverpool's management and Kop agree additional
funds are required; and

• is supportive of both the current executives and football team
management at Liverpool to provide stability to the Club.

What is more worrying to me this bit ..

The cash consideration payable under the Offer will be funded from facilities made available to Kop, which are personally guaranteed by the Gillett and Hicks families.

So their assets are already tied up by the original offer and my not be sufficent to secure another ( or bigger ) loan which means they have to secure it against the club.

Without the stadium money there wont be any huge increase in revenue which means that the current finances wont be enought for new signings.

Bad situation all round right now.

[Jimthered]

3. Moores and Parry at the same time have objected to the debt going on the club as per the "sale agreement".

There is no agreement , not written. All they gave was an assurance which means nothing .

[blacky]

There is no agreement , not written. All they gave was an assurance which means nothing .

How do we know this?

[Jimthered]

How do we know this?

I just read it.

Sale agreement

Still the old board got free tickets for life

[Rashid]

I have no reason to doubt the person telling me. It may not have been in that offer but it was in an agreement with Moores upon sale. Otherwise why didn't they do it at the start? Not saying you're wrong Jim, I am just saying what I've been told.

[blacky]

I just read it.

Sale agreement

Still the old board got free tickets for life

Thanks Jim. I understand what you are saying. There is no clause in the sale agreement that was made on behalf of the shareholders. That does not mean that Moores privately did not obtain a seperate assurance from the yanks. A simple legal document could have been drawn up.

[Red_Al_77]

Hicks' ego will not allow him to sell IMO. They will get the loan. The only way DIC will get the club is if they make an unbelievable offer.....if they really are waiting in the wings.

[Jimthered]

Thanks Jim. I understand what you are saying. There is no clause in the sale agreement that was made on behalf of the shareholders. That does not mean that Moores privately did not obtain a seperate assurance from the yanks. A simple legal document could have been drawn up.

Fair comment, but the fact they are even considering it should tell us that no such document exists. Parry and Moores can puff and whine but they dont have any real power at the club, because G&H own all the shares.

From what I am reading, the stumbling block is that one of them is refusing to put 20 Million of his own money in the new deal , perferring to put that 20 million debt on to the club. I guess this is why the bansl are baulking as if he wont put 20 mill of his own money in why should they lend them 350 million. All guesswork on my part though.

[Jimthered]

I am also thinking that if Moores did sign an agreement to that effect while acting as a share holder it would have to have been disclosed to the city .

[Rashid]

http://www.globesports.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080118.wsptbrunt18/GSStory/GlobeSportsSoccer/home

Globe and Mail Update

Stephen Brunt
January 18, 2008

Suffice it to say, there is trouble in paradise.

The partnership between George Gillett and Tom Hicks, the Americans who own Liverpool Football Club, is in severe distress right now.

It's a safe bet that the team's immediate future might involve one of them, or it might involve neither of them.

But it almost certainly won't involve both.

When they purchased the club a little less than a year ago, Gillett and Hicks had to know they were in for a bumpy ride. Other outsiders had already made their way along that perilous path — most notably the reviled Glazer family with Manchester United and Russian zillionaire Roman Abramovich with Chelsea, who at least bought love by winning silverware — but still there remains that tinge of suspicion-bordering-on-xenophobia anytime outsiders grab a piece of England's national game.

Liverpool, with its glorious history and with its distinct local culture, would arguably present an even greater challenge than the other clubs. From the outset, the battle for scouser acceptance was an uphill battle, with the local press jumping on any suggestion that the Americans didn't fully comprehend the game or its idiosyncratic business, and didn't share the supporters' undying passion.

Gillett at least understood that kind of dynamic, having gone through much the same thing when he bought the Montreal Canadiens. He managed to defuse most of the resistance there by hiring good, unimpeachable people to run the hockey team, and by approaching the whole cultural issue from a posture of humility. With Liverpool, his son, Foster, moved to the city full-time to help run the team just as he had previously moved to Montreal, and though George Gillett quickly stopped talking to the local press, he stayed visible among the fans, employing his considerable charm towards convincing the supporter base that his heart was in the right place.

For Hicks, though, who owns the Texas Rangers of Major League Baseball and the Dallas Stars of the National Hockey League, this was all new territory, and he stepped into trouble again and again. Much of the most recent media firestorm in the U.K. — including the admission that the owners had dallied with Jurgen Klinsmann (who subsequently accepted the job of managing Bayern Munich beginning next season) while Rafael Benitez was still under contract as the Liverpool manager — can be laid at Hicks' feet.

That clash in styles, as much as the oft-reported question of the club's refinancing in order to underwrite the construction of a new, much larger stadium to replace the fabled Anfield, seems to be at the heart the current ownership crisis.

It is highly likely that by next week, it will be announced that the owners' refinancing plan has been completed — a tricky proposition in these times of tight credit - allowing Liverpool both to turn sod for the new stadium this summer, with opening scheduled for 2011, and to be active participants in the transfer market going forward. The extra seats and extra revenue possibilities of the new Anfield will allow whoever owns the team to proceed from a position of strength in the ultra-competitive upper echelon of the English Premier League.

But just who is that going to be?

It's an open question right now. Hicks and Gillett are equal partners. The first option will be for one to buy the other out — whether or not Hicks's heart is still in the game is difficult to judge, but Gillett at the very least seems interested in continuing his association with soccer, either at Liverpool or elsewhere, where he might invest the proceeds of a buyout.

If either is seeking a new partner, there are a plenty of available candidates waiting in the wings, including Dubai Investment Capital, who were beaten to the punch by the Americans last year. Similarly, if both Hicks and Gillett's share goes on the open market, there would be no shortage of interested buyers, and the Americans could be expected to claim a healthy return on their initial investment.

But the sense is that Gillett, if he has his druthers, would prefer to hang in — if it's in a buyout scenario, almost certainly with a new partner.

That might not be the perfect ending for the hard-core Liverpool loyalists, who no doubt dream of having one of their own sitting in the front row of the directors' box, someone who has lived and breathed the team and the city their entire life.

But assuming that that's a fantasy now, that the choice is between one American, another American, and the investment arm of an oil-rich Arab emirate, it shouldn't really be so tough.

A hockey fan in Montreal could tell them that they could do much worse.

[Guest]

Could well be that Gillett sells his share.

[Redfan63]

Many thanks to you all. Really hope our pressure will change evil things very very soon.
Salute to all answers to me!!

[carlton]

Keep the pressure on lads.. and let there be no mistake. Just because Gillett is silent it doesn't mean he isn't a cunt too, he is. Just the lesser of two evils from what I've heard.

As far as I know as it stands.

1. Deal agreed with Wachovia 'just for the cost of the club and last summers transfers'.
2. Hicks and Gillett trying to get extra money so they can start on the stadium but banks want a deposit which the two owners are unwilling to give - wrangling still going on.
3. Moores and Parry at the same time have objected to the debt going on the club as per the "sale agreement".

DIC lurking offering everyone a way out - which at the moment is being resisted but a tempting offer for all concerned...

LFC on a knife edge, it is just a matter of days though.

if this is true why the fu*k did these cun*s by the club? so potentially we get no stadium and they put their purchase of the club on its books. Fu*k Moores and the horse he rode in on. Talk about killing the thing you love. How could he have ever sold the club to these two motherf*ckers?

[tomasjj]

sent him mine too

oh....

Bet that was juicy.