DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[Vermilion]

That bit about 'planted statement's by people with a self interest agenda', makes me think Hicks is here to stay in some capacity, It also confirms he IS in a confrontational situation with Someone, DIC or Gillette or BOTH. But his visit to Dubai, he could have made a statement about his visit there, denying it was to do with takeover talks, HE DID'NT.

I only hope this SPLIT between H&G is genuine, & not part of their devious underhand plan.

[MattB]

That bit about 'planted statement's by people with a self interest agenda', makes me think Hicks is here to stay in some capacity, It also confirms he IS in a confrontational situation with Someone, DIC or Gillette or BOTH. But his visit to Dubai, he could have made a statement about his visit there, denying it was to do with takeover talks, HE DID'NT.

I only hope this SPLIT between H&G is genuine, & not part of their devious underhand plan.

Hicks has clearly been advised to 'take a position and stick to it'. That position is that he is in it for the long term. To comment directly on reports of his visit to Dubia would only weaken that position and muddy the waters from his point of view.

If he is negotiating with Dubia he will continue to play the media with a straight bat until those negotiations are concluded one way or another. He is not commenting on Gillett because it is irrelevant to his position (both in negotiations and in the media).

I would be very suprised if he dealt with any specific information from the media (e.g. GG sale, Dubia visit) - other than issue the kind of general 'I'm not selling' statement we've seen today.

On a separate note, it's probably not a coincidence that DIC hired a PR agency last week and now Hicks is moaning about 'self interested parties' briefing the media against him.

[Manofthebog]

Tom Hicks: I won't be selling to DIC
Feb 26 2008


Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum/Tom Hicks/Anfield montage _320

The future of Liverpool remains dogged by uncertainty despite American co-owner Tom Hicks insisting he is not planning to sell his stake in the club.

The Texan billionaire claims he is completely committed to the Reds and has denied reports he has invited Dubai International Capital (DIC) to inspect the club’s accounts in preparation for a takeover.

However, it is understood Hicks has had talks with DIC even after a £350million refinancing package was announced on January 25.

There has also been a breakdown in relations between Hicks and American co-owner George Gillett, and DIC are considering making an offer for Gillett’s 50% stake in Liverpool, although no price has been agreed. They would also want some of Hicks’ holding so they had the controlling interest in the club.

Hicks will also be aware he is unpopular on Merseyside - his son Thomas Jnr was spat at and chased out of a pub by angry fans following Liverpool’s game with Middlesbrough at Anfield on Saturday.

Hicks’ statement denied any move on his part to sever ties, however.

It read: “Reports that I am about to sell my stake in the Liverpool Football Club, or to invite DIC to examine the club’s books in preparation for such a sale - like other such reports planted in the UK press in recent weeks by parties with their own self-interested agenda - are absolutely and categorically false.

“The reality is that I am personally, professionally and financially committed to the club and its supporters and that I will continue to honour that commitment to the best of my ability now and in the future.”

It appears no takeover by DIC is imminent but that the Dubai company, the investment arm of the Maktoum royal family, are keeping their options open.

The main problem preventing a takeover remains the price DIC are willing to pay.

It has been nowhere near the amount of money Hicks has been asking for - he would want to make a substantial sum out of selling the club.

Another hurdle to overcome is that the refinancing package announced on January 25 has loaded £105million of debt on to the club. Of that, £60million is earmarked to kick-start the new stadium development plus £45million for future player transfers and to meet the club’s working capital needs.

Finally, even if Gillett is willing to sell his 50% to DIC, they would still not have a controlling share so would want to buy some or all of Hicks’ stake to ensure they had a majority holding.

The takeover talk is being driven by the fact that the refinancing deal only lasts for 18 months and so Hicks and Gillett are soon going to have to start renegotiating the debts.

Furthermore, they are shortly going to have to go back to the banks to ask for a further £300million in loans to finance the rest of the new stadium at Stanley Park.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/02/26/tom-hicks-i-won-t-be-selling-to-dic-64375-20527047/

[Steve001]

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?

I would have thought it very unlikely that DIC would ‘buy in’ expecting to flex muscle and force Hicks out over time, I just don’t think it is their style. If there is to be a deal, it will be with everyone’s blessing and understanding and commitment to a plan. Shareholders agreements will be in place to prevent hostile tactics.

There are of course a shed load of options open to them. They could buy GG’s 50% share, then independently fund the building of the new stadium as a separate business entity or plan to inject more capital into the club which would dilute Hicks’ 50% and possibly many many more scenarios that would still all be consistent with the statement by Hicks that he is not “selling” his share and is in it for the long haul.

[Pacman]

Tom Hicks: I won't be selling to DIC
Feb 26 2008


Sheikh Mohammed Al Maktoum/Tom Hicks/Anfield montage _320

The future of Liverpool remains dogged by uncertainty despite American co-owner Tom Hicks insisting he is not planning to sell his stake in the club.

The Texan billionaire claims he is completely committed to the Reds and has denied reports he has invited Dubai International Capital (DIC) to inspect the club’s accounts in preparation for a takeover.

However, it is understood Hicks has had talks with DIC even after a £350million refinancing package was announced on January 25.

There has also been a breakdown in relations between Hicks and American co-owner George Gillett, and DIC are considering making an offer for Gillett’s 50% stake in Liverpool, although no price has been agreed. They would also want some of Hicks’ holding so they had the controlling interest in the club.

Hicks will also be aware he is unpopular on Merseyside - his son Thomas Jnr was spat at and chased out of a pub by angry fans following Liverpool’s game with Middlesbrough at Anfield on Saturday.

Hicks’ statement denied any move on his part to sever ties, however.

It read: “Reports that I am about to sell my stake in the Liverpool Football Club, or to invite DIC to examine the club’s books in preparation for such a sale - like other such reports planted in the UK press in recent weeks by parties with their own self-interested agenda - are absolutely and categorically false.

“The reality is that I am personally, professionally and financially committed to the club and its supporters and that I will continue to honour that commitment to the best of my ability now and in the future.”

It appears no takeover by DIC is imminent but that the Dubai company, the investment arm of the Maktoum royal family, are keeping their options open.

The main problem preventing a takeover remains the price DIC are willing to pay.

It has been nowhere near the amount of money Hicks has been asking for - he would want to make a substantial sum out of selling the club.

Another hurdle to overcome is that the refinancing package announced on January 25 has loaded £105million of debt on to the club. Of that, £60million is earmarked to kick-start the new stadium development plus £45million for future player transfers and to meet the club’s working capital needs.

Finally, even if Gillett is willing to sell his 50% to DIC, they would still not have a controlling share so would want to buy some or all of Hicks’ stake to ensure they had a majority holding.

The takeover talk is being driven by the fact that the refinancing deal only lasts for 18 months and so Hicks and Gillett are soon going to have to start renegotiating the debts.

Furthermore, they are shortly going to have to go back to the banks to ask for a further £300million in loans to finance the rest of the new stadium at Stanley Park.

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...4375-20527047/

Not as positive as this morning.

[NICKZS]

I would have thought it very unlikely that DIC would ‘buy in’ expecting to flex muscle and force Hicks out over time, I just don’t think it is their style. If there is to be a deal, it will be with everyone’s blessing and understanding and commitment to a plan. Shareholders agreements will be in place to prevent hostile tactics.

There are of course a shed load of options open to them. They could buy GG’s 50% share, then independently fund the building of the new stadium as a separate business entity or plan to inject more capital into the club which would dilute Hicks’ 50% and possibly many many more scenarios that would still all be consistent with the statement by Hicks that he is not “selling” his share and is in it for the long haul.

This is one confusing situation.

[John_Gotti]

Can he stop DIC looking at the books if Gillett wants to sell his share??

No he cannot stop them

[Jayesh87]

Not as positive as this morning.

They have just copied and pasted the article from the times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/spo...cle3439815.ece

They won't have their own journo's given their opinion until tomoz morning.

[Jayesh87]

No he cannot stop them

Also in his statement he mentions that he hasn't invited DIC to look at the books, but nowt about GG.

[Steve001]

This is one confusing situation.

It certainly is but you know what, and as frustrating as it is for all of us, I do take some comfort in the fact that for any of these current and/or potential owners, to make anything (and in Hicks case it can only be to make money) out of the associtaion with our club, the team has to perform on the pitch so they have to invest to make that happen. Even LFC will not fill a 70,000 seater every homegame if we are playing ****e and not competing.

[Manofthebog]

Aunty Beeb changes it's tune:-


Hicks 'in talks about Reds sale'

Talks between Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks and Dubai International Capital about selling his share in the club are continuing, BBC Sport understands.
Hicks has again strenuously denied renewed claims that he plans to sell his 50% holding in the club.

But the American is believed to have held talks with DIC although they are not believed to have been given access to the club's accounts.

DIC may also try to buy out Hicks's partner George Gillett's 50% stake.

A statement from Hicks read: "Reports in the UK media that I am about to sell my stake in the Liverpool Football Club, or to invite DIC to examine the club's books in preparation for such a sale - like other such reports planted in the UK press in recent weeks by parties with their own self-interested agenda - are absolutely and categorically false.

"The reality is that I am personally, professionally and financially committed to the club and its supporters and that I will continue to honor that commitment to the best of my ability now and in the future."

Hicks and Gillett beat off competition from DIC to take over Liverpool in February 2007, but the Dubai club have recently appeared to renew their interest.

Last month, Liverpool confirmed a £350m refinancing package, with £60m to be used as start-up money for the new ground in Stanley Park.

That repackaging deal, which also piled £105m of debt on the club, only lasts 18 months and the renewed takeover talk appears to be driven by the fact that Hicks and Gillett will soon have to start renegotiating their debts.

[John_Gotti]

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.

That is the best analysis I have seen so far and it makes perfect sense.

[wishiwasascouser]

Its ironic that Gillett is selling, or looking to sell first, when he was the one that invited hicks into the deal.I suppose LFC was a millionaires version of an "impulse buy". Ridiculous!

[Radar]

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

So DIC get 2 board seats plus Parry and Moores will have so much Arab ****e on there nose's it will be 4 v's 2.

[Manofthebog]

anyone seen that bit on the BBC website yet?

can c&p it if you want me to.................