Dubai International to make bid for Liverpool FC

[shanks69]

How would that have anything to do with the sale of a club? smells like BS to me

maybe they want to be 1st choice as a sponsor of the stadium.

[Fowler_God]

maybe they want to be 1st choice as a sponsor of the stadium.

Hicks wants to sell. DIC want to buy. Someone wants to sponsor the stadium, thus the deal cant go through until they are happy??

[vantage]

Do we know for sure that the refinance has been signed? If you go back to the initial statement on the offal, it says "secured" not necessarily signed.

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drill...80125-1442.htm

That actually makes some sense. The financing, we are to be believe has been 'secured' which would mean is available.

I have also read that both parties needed to ante up £20m to complete the deal. It would appear that Hicks has done so, but it just could be that GG hasn't. Which could well mean that the deal is unable to be signed on its current terms.

That would make some sense of the lack of statements form Gillett about the funding and I believe Hicks is bull****ting with his positive stance.

[serenejim]

Liverpool may be responsible for £350m debt

By David Bond
Last Updated: 11:54pm GMT 06/02/2008



Despite an appeal from chief executive Rick Parry for everyone associated with Liverpool to stop washing dirty linen in public, there is still great unease within the club over exactly where the liability for the new £350 million refinancing resides.


Exactly one year on from their £220 million takeover of the club, a spokesman for American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr insisted yesterday that there was no intention to load all the debts on to Liverpool's balance sheet.

Rick Parry: Liverpool may be responsible for the entire £350m debt
Stop clowning around: Rick Parry wants to get back to Liverpool way

While they have admitted the £30 million-a-year interest payments will be serviced by the club, they maintain Liverpool will be liable only for £105 million of the new loans with Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia.

The Americans insist a further £245 million of new borrowings taken out by parent company, Kop Football, are secured by their personal guarantees and cash.

But there is uncertainty within Anfield about the implications of an inter-company loan set up to ensure the interest payments can be paid by club income. Some sources believe it makes Liverpool legally responsible for the full £350 million.

If that is the case, then the move would seem to run contrary to a commitment given by Hicks and Gillett in their official offer document to shareholders last year.
advertisement

At that time they said: "The payment of interest on, repayment of or security for any liability (contingent or otherwise) due under the facilities [loans] will not depend to any significant extent on the business of Liverpool."

If they were to go back on that commitment, the move could attract the interest of City regulator, the Takeover Panel, and embarrass Rothschilds, the bankers used by the Americans to do the deal.

With Liverpool's future still unclear and Dubai International Capital still trying to launch a takeover bid, Parry yesterday called for the club to pull together.

"This is not the Liverpool we all know and love," he said. "It has never been our style to wash our dirty linen in public. The sooner we can put all of this behind us and get back to the Liverpool way the better."
# Contact David Bond: [email protected]
The highlighted bits are the most interesting. Anyone know if the regulators could get them out for us?

[Lecter]

Hmm, interesting if true. I'd be particularly interested to know what "unrelated demands" the Americans have made?

Have to say though, rumours of Al Maktoum instructing DIC to get Liverpool, they'll pay whatever it takes, DIC are willing to fork out more if necessary etc could prove detrimental if the yanks get wind of them and decide to be hardline in negotiations and being more unreasonable as a result.

Rumours elsewhere seem to think its favourable terms (first options) on future business dealings and / or favourable loans from DIC owned financial houses / banks

[Lecter]

Liverpool may be responsible for £350m debt

By David Bond
Last Updated: 11:54pm GMT 06/02/2008



Despite an appeal from chief executive Rick Parry for everyone associated with Liverpool to stop washing dirty linen in public, there is still great unease within the club over exactly where the liability for the new £350 million refinancing resides.


Exactly one year on from their £220 million takeover of the club, a spokesman for American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr insisted yesterday that there was no intention to load all the debts on to Liverpool's balance sheet.

Rick Parry: Liverpool may be responsible for the entire £350m debt
Stop clowning around: Rick Parry wants to get back to Liverpool way

While they have admitted the £30 million-a-year interest payments will be serviced by the club, they maintain Liverpool will be liable only for £105 million of the new loans with Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia.

The Americans insist a further £245 million of new borrowings taken out by parent company, Kop Football, are secured by their personal guarantees and cash.

But there is uncertainty within Anfield about the implications of an inter-company loan set up to ensure the interest payments can be paid by club income. Some sources believe it makes Liverpool legally responsible for the full £350 million.

If that is the case, then the move would seem to run contrary to a commitment given by Hicks and Gillett in their official offer document to shareholders last year.
advertisement

At that time they said: "The payment of interest on, repayment of or security for any liability (contingent or otherwise) due under the facilities [loans] will not depend to any significant extent on the business of Liverpool."

If they were to go back on that commitment, the move could attract the interest of City regulator, the Takeover Panel, and embarrass Rothschilds, the bankers used by the Americans to do the deal.

With Liverpool's future still unclear and Dubai International Capital still trying to launch a takeover bid, Parry yesterday called for the club to pull together.

"This is not the Liverpool we all know and love," he said. "It has never been our style to wash our dirty linen in public. The sooner we can put all of this behind us and get back to the Liverpool way the better."
# Contact David Bond: [email protected]
The highlighted bits are the most interesting. Anyone know if the regulators could get them out for us?

Dont think it will matter

Since then they have refinanced the additional loans with the approval of the current board of directors

[Lecter]

That actually makes some sense. The financing, we are to be believe has been 'secured' which would mean is available.

I have also read that both parties needed to ante up £20m to complete the deal. It would appear that Hicks has done so, but it just could be that GG hasn't. Which could well mean that the deal is unable to be signed on its current terms.

That would make some sense of the lack of statements form Gillett about the funding and I believe Hicks is bull****ting with his positive stance.

Its bull**** imo

Read the announcement again its says "completed" a number of times

Heres a quote from Hicks "The successful completion of this financing package is particularly significant in light of the currently challenging credit-market environment" sounds to me like its been finalised

Still Hicks could be lying

[vantage]

Its bull**** imo

Read the announcement again its says "completed" a number of times

Heres a quote from Hicks "The successful completion of this financing package is particularly significant in light of the currently challenging credit-market environment" sounds to me like its been finalised

Still Hicks could be lying

It wouldn't exactly be the first time, would it? Where is Snoogy Doogy, anyway? Or was that Gillett?

[Taffy]

What gets me is Gillett's silence throughout all this, which, for me, only means one thing - that he is not at all happy with how it is turning out as co-owner of LFC.

Both G & H have obviously fallen out over the financial matters involved with owning LFC and with what Hicks has been blabbing out about in the press these past few months (i.e. against Rafa, the Klinsmann 'howler', etc.) - Gillett is surely peeved with Hicks for it all, and the silence from him says it all. It just surprises me that we've heared no comments at all from him thoughout the whole sorry saga (is he still alive or has Hicks bunked him off!?).

Anyway, I'm just hopeful that DIC are still around and that they are still actively seeking to buy 'Dumb and Dumber' out. As has been said before, no-one really knows what DIC will bring to LFC but surely it will be a lot better than the current 'custodians' (as they beautifully put it when they took over)!

[MascheredUp]

From Dave Usher on TLW about Parry and DIC:

"He wouldn't have said that because he wants to. He's either under orders, or he's got some reason for doing it. He wants Hicks out as much as we do I reckon.

The other stadium design they pushed for, the one from the Manchester based company? Parry commissioned them to do another design because it was the stadium DIC wanted. He wanted to be able to go to them and say 'look, we can build this one if you come in'. Obviously Fat Tom has vetoed that one, but if he isn't here I bet they go back to that plan.

As for DIC, one of the things to come out of that meeting last week was a very good source revealing how he is in more or less daily contact with them, and they are supremely confident they will get the club, it's just a matter of time.

I haven't heard anything yet to contradict that, so I'm still expecting DIC to get in eventually."

[Dhav]

From Dave Usher on TLW about Parry and DIC:

"He wouldn't have said that because he wants to. He's either under orders, or he's got some reason for doing it. He wants Hicks out as much as we do I reckon.

The other stadium design they pushed for, the one from the Manchester based company? Parry commissioned them to do another design because it was the stadium DIC wanted. He wanted to be able to go to them and say 'look, we can build this one if you come in'. Obviously Fat Tom has vetoed that one, but if he isn't here I bet they go back to that plan.

As for DIC, one of the things to come out of that meeting last week was a very good source revealing how he is in more or less daily contact with them, and they are supremely confident they will get the club, it's just a matter of time.

I haven't heard anything yet to contradict that, so I'm still expecting DIC to get in eventually."

if DIC come in please dear God I hope we don't up with that monstrosity of a stadium that AFL drew up

[tomasjj]

if DIC come in please dear God I hope we don't up with that monstrosity of a stadium that AFL drew up

The stadium was one thing I agreed with Hicks on. The AFL one I didn't fancy at all.

[Barnyard]

if DIC come in please dear God I hope we don't up with that monstrosity of a stadium that AFL drew up

To be fair, it was better than their first effort. But then so was me tracing round a donut.

[Dhav]

The stadium was one thing I agreed with Hicks on. The AFL one I didn't fancy at all.

But supposedly the 16 other people on the committee thought otherwise, which makes me question their judgment or wonder if they werejust following Parry's lead of giving DIC what they wanted (if there's any credence to what Usher is saying of course).

To be fair, it was better than their first effort. But then so was me tracing round a donut.

Very true

[Tee]

if DIC come in please dear God I hope we don't up with that monstrosity of a stadium that AFL drew up

Have to agree with you on that. The AFL design will look seriously odd. I much prefer the other one, but would make teh Kop bigger.