DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[enema of the state]

I don't buy into a lot of that. Glazers put debt on the club but they are in it long term. .

not comparable - the scum were an immediately profitable enterprise. the debt didnt jeapardise the investment as a whole. the lfc debt might well do. if the stadium is never built, the yanks will take a bath with interest repayments

Likewise Rafa played a large part in undermining himself..

as you like mate

Just find it interesting that people are more ready to believe some nomark on rawk than the man in the middle. After factoring out the spin there has to be a grain of truth in there.

If he was in Dubai last week then to me it seems obvious that the DIC thing will not happen as he was hedging until those talks completed.

not me mate. i make my own mind up on ALL the public domain info

[MattB]

yep, this looks like his bluff before the flop - (with the emphasis on flop hopefully!)

To continue to poker analogy, I doubt any deal with Hicks will come before the river. He'll want to see all the cards before doing anything. Looks like Gillett has already folded though

[wishiwasascouser]

NEWS STORY
HICKS: I AM NOT SELLING
Liverpoolfc.tv 26 February 2008

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N158972080226-1457.htm

[Manofthebog]

Yep, he ain't selling HIS stake in the club.

cough not yet cough

[Shaggy]

NEWS STORY
HICKS: I AM NOT SELLING
Liverpoolfc.tv 26 February 2008


http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drill...80226-1457.htm

Yeah yeah knobhead (not you wishiwasascouser ), but what about Gillett huh? Huh?

[Lecter]

I don't buy into a lot of that. Glazers put debt on the club but they are in it long term. Likewise Rafa played a large part in undermining himself.

Just find it interesting that people are more ready to believe some nomark on rawk than the man in the middle. After factoring out the spin there has to be a grain of truth in there.

If he was in Dubai last week then to me it seems obvious that the DIC thing will not happen as he was hedging until those talks completed.

Glazers loan is a long term one if I remember rightly

The current refinance package we have runs for 18 months doesnt sound like a long term financial commitment to me

[wishiwasascouser]

If DIC buy out Gilletts half, it will be time for Hicks to worry I can't imagine he would last long at all.I hope DIC would be happy with 50% for a period of time before getting the other out of the way...

[Tee]

This guy Hicks is like a bad dream... someone wake me up when DIC take over. Thanks.

[Assassin]

Not aimed at anyone specific but can we all just try to play nice in this thread please people, 50+ deleted posts in an 800 post thread really isn't very good form.

If you think someone's an idiot, just don't respond to their posts, that way all sorts of idiocy will be kept to a minimum

Is it ok to reply if you think they are a Bellend, ******, Tube etc...

[NICKZS]

Can someone answer this for me, please?:

Isn't it possible for DIC to take over Gillett's half of the club for the time being and then use their power on the board to veto any use of dividend payments on the re-financing loan that Hicks took out, thereby forcing him into either a sale of his shares or using his own clout to finance the interest payments?

[Darkon]

NEWS STORY
HICKS: I AM NOT SELLING
Liverpoolfc.tv 26 February 2008


http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drill...80226-1457.htm

You can really tell a difference in the offal site since H&G (or was it just hicks) bought the website back... All of a sudden they are carrying stories that would normally be left for journos to write. This story and the one about raffa getting support from hicks etc...

I know see the bigger purpose of the buy, to use as a propaganda machine...

[Lecter]

Can someone answer this for me, please?:

Isn't it possible for DIC to take over Gillett's half of the club for the time being and then use their power on the board to veto any use of dividend payments on the re-financing loan that Hicks took out, thereby forcing him into either a sale of his shares or using his own clout to finance the interest payments?

Provided they can secure the voting majority of the board YES

The board is currently George Gillett, Foster Gillett, Tom Hicks Sr, Tom Hicks Jr (I think), Moores & Parry

Assuming they take the two Gilletts seats on the board they would still have to get Moores & Parry on side to veto dividend payments

I dont think that would be a problem but you never know

[MattB]

You can really tell a difference in the offal site since H&G (or was it just hicks) bought the website back... All of a sudden they are carrying stories that would normally be left for journos to write. This story and the one about raffa getting support from hicks etc...

I know see the bigger purpose of the buy, to use as a propaganda machine...

Most of it reads like a standard denial statement - the like of which you will see come out of PR agencies on a daily basis.

Except this bit: like other such reports planted in the UK press in recent weeks by parties with their own self-interested agenda

Looks a lot like his agency have prepared a statement and run it by him for approval - but he has added this bit. But who is he talking about? Gillett, DIC?

[NICKZS]

Provided they can secure the voting majority of the board YES

The board is currently George Gillett, Foster Gillett, Tom Hicks Sr, Tom Hicks Jr (I think), Moores & Parry

Assuming they take the two Gilletts seats on the board they would still have to get Moores & Parry on side to veto dividend payments

I dont think that would be a problem but you never know

Cheers

I would think that the threat of such a situation arising would somewhat irk Hicks.

[Lecter]

Nicked off RAWK

These are some relevant principles.

1. GG can agree in principle to sell to DIC (or anybody else) with the proviso that he offers his 50% holding to Hicks at the same price.

2. In order to allow DIC to make a firm offer for his 50% he has to give them access to the books to do due diligence. He does not need Hick's permission to do that. But the club accountants would have to be certain that they had been given proper, legal authorization from the board of directors to cooperate with DIC. Presumably they would get this at least from the majority of the board composed of the GG directors, Moores and Parry.

3. Hicks cannot gain control by buying 1% or some other minority portion of CC's holding. The right to match the DIC offer does not include the right to break up the GG 50% into smaller pieces. In any case, the 50% is in the form of a single share that is indivisible. To make it divisible into shares of smaller denomination would require a resolution of the board of directors.

4. If DIC were to gain 50% ownership they would need the approval of the board of directors for any major proposal. If they gained the support of Moore's and Parry they might be able to vote down Hick's opposition on certain issues. However, this would not apply to any proposal that would clash with the terms of the financing that is already in place in so far as it still includes Hick's guarantees. And this may include any proposal by DIC to "lend" the club money for transfers in the way Moore's used to do.

5. The 50-50 arrangement was always a desperate measure GG took to seal the deal quickly. There is no satisfactory mechanism for resolving disputes between shareholders. This would also be the case in a 50-50 DIC-Hicks arrangement.

6. My speculation is that DIC will have to offer Hick's a good price for his shares and some additional reward such as participation in one of his investment funds. Hicks can drag the matter on for about a year. But once the clock starts ticking down on the refinancing in 18 months, his bargaining position weakens drastically. DIC could refuse to renew the joint financing or the financing for the stadium leaving Hicks to thrash about for his own financing and that would be difficult if he was seen to be in a stalemate with DIC.

The bottom line is that if DIC do make an offer for GG's shares which is accepted, then the club is in for continuing instability until the other shoe drops. It is in the interest of all parties to settle the issue of control. This could be achieved by a shareholder agreement with Hicks whereby he agrees to give DIC a deciding vote. But in the end, it will be the financially stronger of the two that will prevail.

Note: The facts in this matter are very much different from the reports being circulated by CTR and Elisha Scott.