DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[Lecter]

Well the rumours were apparently started by a senior source from DIC, dont see why they would start the rumours if it wasn't true.

No quotes though Milky

[AFII]

My understanding is the first option is all or nothing

Now I'm sure hicks would love 1% its his ideal scenario little outlay to gain overall control

The reasons why Gillett & DIC wouldnt go for this have been laid out above

As has been said the only logical explanation for taking 49% is on the basis of guaranteeing further holdings at a later date

[carlton]

Well the rumours were apparently started by a senior source from DIC, dont see why they would start the rumours if it wasn't true.

Yes I noticed 1 paper or agency (AP) had the story coming from a DIC source but others saying a source close to the deal

[Jayesh87]

Yes I noticed 1 paper or agency (AP) had the story coming from a DIC source but others saying a source close to the deal

AP have been pro Hicks imo

But the echo have ran with the story so i presume they would have been told the same thing by their sources.

[carlton]

AP have been pro Hicks imo

But the echo have ran with the story so i presume they would have been told the same thing by their sources.

Agreed about AP, but my call is that the Echo have been pro Hicks in all of this.

[Lecter]

AP have been pro Hicks imo

But the echo have ran with the story so i presume they would have been told the same thing by their sources.

Or alternatively hadnt anything from their own sources so decided to run a rehashed version of AP's story

[Skillz]

No public statements to this effect by DIC either. This 49% could be Hicks spin? Why would Hicks be flying to meet DIC if he is going to call the shots?

Personally I would of thought this is all Hicks PR. DIC are prepared to meet some demands, that to me does not = 49% ownership, but if it gives Hicks reason to go and meet DIC next week and take the high ground I doubt DIC will care.

TBH I believe the deal has been arranged since Hicks went to Dubai 2 weeks ago and GG agreed to sell almost 90 days ago, hence why he and his son ****ed off, about 90 days ago.

Why do I say this? 2 reasons

a) Rafa is back in his pomp, looking pretty happy with himself (expect a 2 year extension before this season is out)

b) Elisha Scott posted a 40M profit for each about the time Hicks would of been advised he will not be able to raise the money to buy out GG share. I suspect whoever ES source was had been advised it was on because the only stumbling block had been removed.

I also expect they will both walk out with 40M GBP profit each, the cunts.

[Pacman]

Agreed about AP, but my call is that the Echo have been pro Hicks in all of this.

Do you really think the Echo have been pro Hicks?

I think they couldn't have been clearer who they back and it aint the yanks.

[Lecter]

Agreed about AP, but my call is that the Echo have been pro Hicks in all of this.

are you serious?

[Rafa Shankly]

Thats my slant on things as well

im surprised barrett ran with it though,i hate to say it and im in no way doubting the lad,but his articles can be very confusing.

one day its on on DICs terms the next day its off all together,the next its on again.

[carlton]

are you serious?

Slightly pro Hicks yes. Keeping their options open.

[DannyMan2006]

The only problem I see is this:

In November DC entered into talks over a 15% stake, but decided against it when the price was descibed as "pie in the sky".

Now they have a chance to buy in as Gillet wants rid of his shares. He can't sell to Hicks as he hasn't got the cash. So he lowers the original valuation and offers them to DIC.

DIC accept and get the minority investment that they originally entered into talks over. Hicks gets his 51% and Gillet gets shot. Everyones happy.

Apart from the fans of course.

I don't think this is likely, but I'm at a loss as to why anyone would accept a minority holding.

------------------------------

Unless................... Scenario two.

When Granada bought shares in Liverpool they paid a one time fee. They never paid any money into the club. Lets say this is what DIC do.

This leaves Hicks in a situation where in order to build the stadium and create a future profit, he must invest and come up with ALL of the cash. As well as keeping the team successful of course.

A tall order.

[Lecter]

Slightly pro Hicks yes. Keeping their options open.

I'm struggling to think of a pro-Hicks article they have wrote so far

Daily Post might be another story but the Echo definitely isnt pro-Hicks

[Pacman]

I'm struggling to think of a pro-Hicks article they have wrote so far

Daily Post might be another story but the Echo definitely isnt pro-Hicks

I agree.

That article this week by John Tompson? couldn't have made which camp they are in clearer.

[Vermilion]

Quite possible. Would not surprise me if one or both retains an interest in some form. If DIC get 98%, I could live with that

I could (for now) live with Dic getting....50.9%. Makes ALL the difference, Just them being the Majority, by whatever %age for now.