DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[Skillz]

tick tock, tick tock....

**** that, I am now into digital mode. 1/100th of a second stuff all the way.

[sonsofthedesert]

Just a serious note on this, if no other source/newspaper is carrying this within the next 24 hrs we will know it's ****e.

[Lecter]

Hick's would be stuffed up royally, DIC could force his hand if they get 50%. Hicks would have to match DIC finacially and also DIC could stop Hicks from refiancing the debt again in the future and maybe force his hand by saying they won't agree that the clubs profits will go to paying off their debt.

Hicks wouldnt have to match DIC financially, however DIC could veto dividend payments (if they have the board majority) to service the loans and could force Hicks to cough up from his own pockets or via extra loans

My one concern with this situation is how long could Hicks wait it out, it could be weeks, months or years with this stalemate

[Diego]

Well, he will make a quick buck. He is still not that much better than Hicks.

i beg to differ. he's not a saint but he can't be nothing like hicks. gillet has always spoke out with passion about the club and it's traditions and was very passionate about buying it. that cunt hicks has always come across as a fat cunt, a loudmouth that does not care about the club...

therefor imo, especially if it true that gillet has sold he is a much better man in my book

[Armchairkopite]

Lec, do you believe DIC will/have purchased Gilletts half of the club?

[Pablo]

When was the last time Gillete spoke out about anything? The man has become a hermit. His son has too by the sound of things.

I am actually starting to think Tom Hicks has butchered George Gillette back in Decemeber and has buried him under his new swimming pool

[Johnny]

If DIC buy out Gillett, will they then have first option on Hicks shares?

That`s not neccessarily true.New contracts mean new circumstances.

[sonsofthedesert]

The latest bit from him:

Two sources on this: one in London says the deal was struck, the other source says an agreement of sorts was made (or discussed) but nothing signed yet. Trying to get the first source to elaborate.

[Morten_nogamst_Pedersen]

From some Tom R on TLW. Dunno how reliable he is but here goes

Things are a lot closer.

The stumbling block is now the interest on the loan that Hicks has taken out. Because our credit rating was so bad, and the club was/is a mess, we didn't get a great deal from RBS. In fact it's pretty ****ing appalling.

So, whilst DIC have the hard cash to buy, RBS still want their interest. Like in all finance agreements there is an early settlement penalty that ensures that lenders still receive most of the interest payable, as if it was over 10 years or whatever.
DIC obviously aren't happy with that, as they had no say in brokering this deal and they could have bought in BEFORE the finance was secured, hence avoiding it.

This is why Hicks and GHillet were so keen to get finance agreed, even if they knew they would sell up once they had secured it. Without it they had no negotiating power whatsoever as they were in the **** and the buyer would have held the cards and they've have been bent over a barrell. Now they have breathing space they are in a stronger position to negotiate, but it means that the price is now higher.

Both Hicks and DIC want to do business, but it's now, techncially, the banks (or the interest on the loan) that is holding things up, as they still want their money, and Hicks will still want to make a profit from it all.

Thankfully DIC are VERY keen to come on board or they'd have ****ed it off long ago.

[cumbriankop]

no, because the agreement was between Gillett and Hicks. The first option would become void as soon as Gillett has sold his shares to DIC

the company will have whats known as articles of association, that will mean that unless otherwise stated, DIC would have statutory pre-emption rights on any transfer of shares.

this may have been disapplied as it is merely a fall back position if they did not draw up their own management articles, if not it would mean that Hicks would have to offer the shares to DIC before anywhere else.

LFC as a joint venture could well mean that 'KopHoldings' or whatever got rid of this, so that they could sell anywhere and make more money

[cumbriankop]

That`s not neccessarily true.New contracts mean new circumstances.

the company itself will still have the same 'Articles' which goven how the company is run. my guess is that Gillett got pissed off with how it was going then may have had to offer his shares to Hicks first.

When he couldn't afford to buy him out, he became free to offer them to DIC.

The fact that DIC are now possibly coming in, won't affect how the company that owns LFC runs, so any first option or 'pre-emption' on shares that are in the Company Articles will still apply

[Jayesh87]

Today's Echo piece is a Stevie G interview.

Can't help but think that if this was true, The Echo would have it covered.

[sonsofthedesert]

Today's Echo piece is a Stevie G interview.

Can't help but think that if this was true, The Echo would have it covered.

or at least hinted towards it.

[DomL]

Milkman do you think Barret may have been told to keep hush, so their isnt a big thing if gillet hadnt of signed, i know the echo do normally break this sorts of things but i just feel we may here more tomorow as well hopefully from the echo.

[tomasjj]

Today's Echo piece is a Stevie G interview.

Can't help but think that if this was true, The Echo would have it covered.

or at least hinted towards it.

OR things are not sealed yet...