Hicks Speaks - Sun 26.

[Danish_Pastry]

Just a little on the credibility of some here, who are critizised for telling rumours. Hicks today admitted that they had offered DIC a 15% stake of the shares in November. This came on here - and it went onto the medias - with even the Triball.... mentioning as one of the first.

Now a few here say that DIC are still in the frame, that meetings are ongoing and has been for some period. Hicks denies it - Gillett remains unseen - and DIC have the dignity and the quiet approach that they have due to not losing their name again against Hicks - but it is still on.....

Far to often some of the rumours coming on here from Tom, Rashid etc. are just questioned out in the insane, whereas they sometime (apr. 95%) appears to be as close to fact, as they could be at the time, they came on here.

This is not Koptalk - we don't have Dunk sitting in a corner with 4-5 identities throwing funny stories around to stirr up the interest for the next months payment - this is (God bless etc.) still a free forum, where we come around to support and follow things from the CLUB and to inform each other of good and bad news, that we come across.

Lets keep the debate on a proper level - both from all of us against Hicks and Gillett - from those here pro-/against the DIC-stories - those who wants to find anough three for a bonfire to warm Parry and all the lurkers.....
























.... and could we then just once have some good news????

[El Jefecito]

Of course we will. I believe they'd sooner strip the club of its assets than dip into their own pockets to cover repayments.

Why do you believe that? What is the basis?

[Tom]

He was asked, he said no LFC would not pay. He was asked for more detail and did not provide it. Very different from how you are trying to portay it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml;jsessionid=OULCT22TLG00FQFIQMFCFFOAVCBQYIV0?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/sport/2008/01/26/sfnliv126.xml

From the telegraph:

"when asked definitively whether he could guarantee that would be the case, Hicks' spokesman was unable to provide any answer.



£28m - estimate of the interest that will have to be paid on the total value of the new borrowings

"

[Dhav]

Why do you believe that? What is the basis?

I believe it because up until now they have seemingly steadfastly refused to stump up any of their own cash.Everything has been done on loans. They may have personally guaranteed a certain amount, provided letters of credit etc, but this is very different to putting your own money down that you've taken from your savings. Besides, they have very low liquidity dont they? Their wealth is tied up in assets. Why would they rather sell personal assets to raise cash as opposed to club assets?

[El Jefecito]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../sfnliv126.xml

From the telegraph:

"when asked definitively whether he could guarantee that would be the case, Hicks' spokesman was unable to provide any answer.



£28m - estimate of the interest that will have to be paid on the total value of the new borrowings

"

Hicks and Gillett are thought to have provided Liverpool with assurances that the interest and service charges for that part of the loan, which could be as much as £20 million, will not be funded from the club's cash flows.

How can say anything DEFINITIVELY with the way the world economy is at the moment. At least they have made their intention very clear.

[El Jefecito]

I believe it because up until now they have seemingly steadfastly refused to stump up any of their own cash.Everything has been done on loans. They may have personally guaranteed a certain amount, provided letters of credit etc, but this is very different to putting your own money down that you've taken from your savings. Besides, they have very low liquidity dont they? Their wealth is tied up in assets. Why would they rather sell personal assets to raise cash as opposed to club assets?

That's just plain wrong they put up 55m for the loans.

[Tom]

How can say anything DEFINITIVELY with the way the world economy is at the moment. At least they have made their intention very clear.

You are joking, they have just spent 2 months in very detailed negotiations with the banks in order to prove that they definitively will be able to cover risk. Given that the fact that they won't give a straight yes or no answer to a key question about the finance is deeply concerning.

[Dhav]

That's just plain wrong they put up 55m for the loans.

Did they? You know that for sure? Because one of the broadsheets today suggested they didn't, it was instead an amount they personally guaranteed.

[Red_Al_77]

They guaranteed against their own assets. They have allegedly yet to put any of their own money into Liverpool.

[El Jefecito]

Did they? You know that for sure? Because one of the broadsheets today suggested they didn't, it was instead an amount they personally guaranteed.

Same thing, they have 55m of skin in the game.

[Alpha]

Did they? You know that for sure? Because one of the broadsheets today suggested they didn't, it was instead an amount they personally guaranteed.

Though the banks required Hicks and Gillett to increase their personal guarantees on the debt to £225m, it is understood that the Americans have not spent any of their own money on the club with the £20m equity each had to inject into the new deal coming in the form of personal loans, repayable by the club to them in the event of a further takeover.

[Rashid]

It is simple economics. G+H are looking to make money and they have realised that the best way to do that is by ensuring the club is worth more in the future for a sale. So it doesn't matter what loans they take out or who the loan is debted to - they will pay what they can from the profits of LFC but in the meantime sell for a huge profit whenever they get the chance. They know they won't make huge profits just from "dividends" in the long term, it will be from a sale.

So it doesn't matter how much loan is stacked up against us or where it is, so long as the sale price is a hell of a lot more.

[El Jefecito]

You are joking, they have just spent 2 months in very detailed negotiations with the banks in order to prove that they definitively will be able to cover risk. Given that the fact that they won't give a straight yes or no answer to a key question about the finance is deeply concerning.

It's a bit easier to show a balance sheet from 3 months ago than it is to show a balance sheet based on 3 years in the future. You knew I was talking about forward looking statements.

[Dhav]

Same thing, they have 55m of skin in the game.

With all due respect, that is nonsense.

They will probably only ever have to stump up that cash if the club either does not have the assets (liquid, current or fixed) to cover it.

BTW Alpha, thanks for clarifying that mate

[disco]

no bank would have loaned that kind of money without cast-iron guarantees and very detailed modelling of cash flow.

So why are people getting worried about all this?