DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[Craig_H]

Altho i didnt read all your post, as there seems to be millions of questions in it

Why i think we will be better off with DIC is because Sameer Al Ansari is a big red, went to uni at liverpool and fell in love with the club. DIC backed by Sheikh Mo (the 5th richest man in the world!) will have the wealth to back Rafa in the transfer market, he is also suppose to be a boyhood reds fan. They want to take us out of debt and they won't over pay for assets so we wont turn into Chelsea in the transfer market. Also they will get the best staff available to transform the club.

Just my opinion like

May be wrong, but Al Ansari went to uni at Loughborough.

[tomasjj]

May be wrong, but Al Ansari went to uni at Loughborough.

You (google) are not wrong this time.

[Imy]

May be wrong, but Al Ansari went to uni at Loughborough.

i think you're right.

[fred_plasticine]

Altho i didnt read all your post, as there seems to be millions of questions in it

Why i think we will be better off with DIC is because Sameer Al Ansari is a big red, went to uni at liverpool and fell in love with the club. DIC backed by Sheikh Mo (the 5th richest man in the world!) will have the wealth to back Rafa in the transfer market, he is also suppose to be a boyhood reds fan. They want to take us out of debt and they won't over pay for assets so we wont turn into Chelsea in the transfer market. Also they will get the best staff available to transform the club.

Just my opinion like

sounds like wishful thinking to me to be honest.
where's the profit? dic is and investment holding and as such they're looking for profits not a plaything.

[Imy]

but nobody on here did any research either did they

Dont recall seeing anyone pointing any of this out.

But its not our business to do background checks, even if we did would the greedy clueless Moores and his gimp Parry have listened anyway?

They fecked up, they fecked up long before this decision too with their short term attitude, they presided over the club when the Mancs and the Gooners became massive and we rotted, bad decision after bad decision was made and now we have Hicks who to an extent has to clean up THEIR mess by ploughing the club in to debt. Its ALL their fault.

[Jayesh87]

sounds like wishful thinking to me to be honest.
where's the profit? dic is and investment holding and as such they're looking for profits not a plaything.

Think long term mate, DIC will want to be making as much money as the mancs do.

[Lecter]

And here's us thinking that Gillette was the one we wouldn't have trouble with. I wonder if he has suddenly changed his whole stance on the issue. Decided to stay on with the Hick, or just that he has decided to sell to him not Dic.

Why does the knocking back of this offer need to be made public, if it's just about waiting for, or forcing a better offer from Dic.

Could be that he senses Dic's desperation to buy, BUT, it's more likely, as some have said on here many times...He & H are a pair of 1st class ****S....of the HIGHEST ORDER.

Yesterday £400 million bid was quoted with £25 million profit for each

If Gillett has turned down an £80 million profit then the total takeover bid stands at £510 million thats a bloody big jump

Doesnt make sense imo and in fact if you read Barretts piece it says Gillett sees the profit as only £40 million which would mean total takeover cost stands at £430 million

Barrett can only print what hes given by his sources, his article today is PR imo. Its designed to show one of the parties in a bad light and to provoke a reaction from the fans. Who would stand to gain from that??

Answer that question and you will know why the article doesnt stand up to scrutiny particularly in terms of the £80 million profit each figure

[Lecter]

but nobody on here did any research either did they

Dont recall seeing anyone pointing any of this out.

Apparently Rashid did

[Jayesh87]

Yesterday £400 million bid was quoted with £25 million profit for each

If Gillett has turned down an £80 million profit then the total takeover bid stands at £510 million thats a bloody big jump

Doesbnt make sense imo and in fact if you read Barretts piece it says Gillett sees the profit as only £40 million which would mean total takeover cost stands at £430 million

Barrett can only print what hes given by his sources, his article today is PR imo. Its designed to show one of the parties in a bad light and to provoke a reaction from the fans. Who would stand to gain from that??

Answer that question and you will know why the article doesnt stand up to scrutiny particularly in terms of the £80 million profit each figure

I was actually thinking that but i didnt think he would do that, its to bascombe-esque

[el matador]

If parry had only bothered to Google hicks before accepting his bid then we wouldnt be in this ****heap situation now.

You cant blame moores - im sure he doesnt even know what google is.

[Imy]

If parry had only bothered to Google hicks before accepting his bid then we wouldnt be in this ****heap situation now.

You cant blame moores - im sure he doesnt even know what google is.

Mr Moores the Littlewoods kingpin, look at whats happened to them, if only he could have googled

[Lecter]

I was actually thinking that but i didnt think he would do that, its to bascombe-esque

I will say again Barrett will print what his source is telling him

Doesnt mean his source is telling the truth

If you look at the piece again Barrett has even checked it with Gilletts side and got conflicting information

I think some important questions have to be asked about the local media

Who is briefing them and to what end

Who do the Echo back DIC or Hicks & Gillett?

Who do the individual reporters back?

IMO they chose sides weeks ago collectively and individually

[kopdan]

Are you serious? Explain to me how we could research someone we didnt know was in the picture.

Why was our job as fans to be ahead of Moores & Parry?

I recall plenty of people (me included) being extremely worried when DIC left the table 1st time round & various links about their past expliots being posted here, but M&P reassured us that they were absolutely certain that we were in the right hands.

Where did that certainty come from & how come the exact same thing was said days before by them about DIC when it looked like they were taking over?

deadly serious mate. It doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things but I think its funny how nobody found this out back then. Were we just happy to be selling out?

[Roboklopp]

I did consider that £40m rather than £80. Basically it's a 30M increase in the offer- up to £430M if we are to believe the reports.

DIc want £400m, the yanks £500m. If DIC are prepared to raise another £20m to £450m, then the yanks might well go for it.

Anyone got a spare £20m?

[BillobShaisley]

sorry, its not our job to do research on prospective buyers of LFC. Its really down to the people who are actually making the decision.

If there hadn't been such an uprising of ungratefull kuntz calling for him to piss off after donating millions of quid from his own pocket over the years we wouldn't have had any of this.

Nobody, perhaps apart from Steve Morgan (Perhaps) was going to take over our club and do anything other than take cash out of it. Greedy feckers us liverpool fans and we deserve to lose our soul for being such a fickle bunch of impatient *******s.