DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[AFII]

Is the fact that they have taken over the debt of the club, does that mean that they are the real owners of the club ??

All the debt that Tom and George created - now is held by DIC. Surely this means that they own the club - because they can collect on the debt at anytime (theoretically) and therefore kick out Hicks - or am I being too simplistic ?

It could be just as you say that they have bought out the loan from RBS and that Hicks will have to pay to them instead of RBS but the debt is against the club so it really don't matter, at least not before the loan should be paid up.

[spider-neil]

Moores and PArry will be gone. Replaced by Ansari and Stavey who have already shown more business savvy than those two numpties.

by spending twice as much as they were prepared to pay only a year ago and spending this on a minority share?

[wavydavy]

by spending twice as much as they were prepared to pay only a year ago and spending this on a minority share?

That fact still baffles me TBH. Just don't get it.

[Sarb]

by spending twice as much as they were prepared to pay only a year ago and spending this on a minority share?

That's what you think. Fact is they're not dumb businessmen mate

We're not going to go into what happened last year are we? I think you'll find that Moores and Parry ****ed DIC around towards the end just to get more money. No returned calls etc.

[blacky]

by spending twice as much as they were prepared to pay only a year ago and spending this on a minority share?

The club was undervalued last year due to an inept board. Since DIC walked away we have reached another CL final and our worldwide profile has improved, we have improved our playing squad (assets) with Torres, Mascherano, Babel etc and add to this our new stadium design and obtained planning permission. All this adds up to the current valuation.

[flyboy]

Just History, I agree he's not the greatest businessman, many many mistakes. But he's Liverpool through & through. He did bring us Rafa, for that i thank him dearly. But yes, there are many reasons for him to go, starting with your 2 above. Big Reasons too.

just for rafa's acquisition

[kopdan]

It's not official LFC headed paper though, must have had it done himself.

Should say Liverpool Football and Athletic Club.

or its fake

[1 True Red]

or its fake

Havn't had internet access for a couple of days Dan and can't be arsed reading all through the long posts again mate so, any chance of a quick breakdown for us please or, if anyone else wouldn't mind please

Thanks

[G]

Havn't had internet access for a couple of days Dan and can't be arsed reading all through the long posts again mate so, any chance of a quick breakdown for us please or, if anyone else wouldn't mind please

Thanks

It looks like they're buyin 49% with the other 1 going to Hicks.This Staveley bird who is negotiating on DICs behalf has said so in a statement.Probably be all done next week.

[pezzzer]

It looks like they're buyin 49% with the other 1 going to Hicks.This Staveley bird who is negotiating on DICs behalf has said so in a statement.Probably be all done next week.

and i suspect a deal has been struck with hicks too but due to his restructuring of his sports group it cant be released yet, just a hunch mind

[wishiwasascouser]

GLENEAGLES, Scotland (AP) -Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks on Saturday launched an angry attack on the Dubai consortium battling for control of the Premier League club, criticizing its behavior during negotiations.

Dubai International Capital agreed late Friday to cede to Hicks' condition that his Anfield partner George Gillett Jr. would be limited to selling 98 percent of his stock, equating to 49 percent of Liverpool.

But Hicks told the Associated Press that he's upset with DIC's lead negotiator Amanda Staveley, saying she has been leaking private correspondence between the pair to the British media.

"If she thinks that is an appropriate way to acquire a stake in Liverpool FC, she had better think again,'' Hicks said in a statement to the AP.

The heightened dispute was a blow to fans' hopes that a partnership breakthrough could restore stability to the club after months of turmoil.

"Amanda Staveley, who has a reputation for being pretty smart, she should know better than to publicly put words in my mouth, particularly words that she knows or should know perfectly well aren't true,'' Hicks said. "She should also know better than to release actual copies of my private correspondence to the press.''

Staveley, who could not immediately be reached for comment, has also said that DIC, the investment arm of the Dubai government, would try to dominate Hicks by bankrolling the club with its superior financial clout and pledged to work on forcing Hicks into selling his 50 percent stake.

Hicks insisted that no deal has been brokered with DIC and that they face competition to acquire even a minority stake.

"DIC is one of several potential minority investors we are or will be talking to,'' he said.

Earlier this week Hicks rebuffed DIC's 500 million pound (US$993 million; ?650 million) bid for the whole club. That would have included paying off the refinancing package Americans Hicks and Gillett negotiated in January for the loan used to purchase the Reds.

Instead, in the short term, DIC is resigned to working with Hicks.

"Subject to renegotiation of a partnership agreement and subject to the stringent minority shareholder protection rights we would be prepared to accept a 49 percent shareholding in Liverpool FC,'' Staveley said Friday. "We have decided that this arrangement provides the best possible solution to the situation and would be in the best interests of the club and their loyal fans.''

Hicks is on the verge of acquiring a majority interest by buying 2 percent of Gillett's stock and is insistent on not relinquishing his position. But DIC's determination to gain full control hasn't wavered.

"Tom Hicks knows that in the long run we will be 100 percent owners of the club, but we are prepared to play a waiting game,'' Staveley said in comments that angered Hicks. "We will be able to pay the price for the financing of the club and construction of a new stadium.''

Both Hicks and Gillett were in telephone contact with Staveley on Friday, but a deal was yet to be signed.

Hicks has a team of lawyers in Dubai ready to meet with DIC's legal representatives early next week.

Hicks can block Gillett from selling because of a pre-emption agreement that says one partner can't sell his stake without the other's approval.

Liverpool fans have mounted a stream of protests against the turmoil in the Anfield boardroom, with the Kop backing the DIC bid to remove the American owners in chants at half time in Wednesday's 4-0 victory over West Ham.

But this compromise deal could only add to the uncertainty which has blighted Liverpool's season. Gillett had been offered up to $158 million, including a share of future profits, to sell his full stake and end his turbulent year in English soccer. It is unclear what he will be offered for 98 percent of his stake.

Hicks and Gillett bought Liverpool for 218.9 million pounds (then US$431 million) in March 2007, and each own 50 percent of the club.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/soccer/wires/03/08/2080.ap.eu.spt.soc.liverpool.ownership.battle.2nd.ld.writethru.0763/index.html

I hope this woman hasn't ****ed it up for us already!

[Skillz]

and i suspect a deal has been struck with hicks too but due to his restructuring of his sports group it cant be released yet, just a hunch mind

No doubt the deal is done. I have been pissed for 2 days celebrating. DIC are in and will be 100% before too long. This is all for show, IMO, and Hicks will get a glorified exit. Personally couldn't give a ****, but I will be waving him goodbye when he goes.

[Darth Marty]

its more hicks bluster, dont panic.

[Sarb]

Don't sound good at all. ****ing hell. Was my concern this morning

[The Barber]

GLENEAGLES, Scotland (AP) -Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks on Saturday launched an angry attack on the Dubai consortium battling for control of the Premier League club, criticizing its behavior during negotiations.

Dubai International Capital agreed late Friday to cede to Hicks' condition that his Anfield partner George Gillett Jr. would be limited to selling 98 percent of his stock, equating to 49 percent of Liverpool.

But Hicks told the Associated Press that he's upset with DIC's lead negotiator Amanda Staveley, saying she has been leaking private correspondence between the pair to the British media.

"If she thinks that is an appropriate way to acquire a stake in Liverpool FC, she had better think again,'' Hicks said in a statement to the AP.

The heightened dispute was a blow to fans' hopes that a partnership breakthrough could restore stability to the club after months of turmoil.

"Amanda Staveley, who has a reputation for being pretty smart, she should know better than to publicly put words in my mouth, particularly words that she knows or should know perfectly well aren't true,'' Hicks said. "She should also know better than to release actual copies of my private correspondence to the press.''

Staveley, who could not immediately be reached for comment, has also said that DIC, the investment arm of the Dubai government, would try to dominate Hicks by bankrolling the club with its superior financial clout and pledged to work on forcing Hicks into selling his 50 percent stake.

Hicks insisted that no deal has been brokered with DIC and that they face competition to acquire even a minority stake.

"DIC is one of several potential minority investors we are or will be talking to,'' he said.

Earlier this week Hicks rebuffed DIC's 500 million pound (US$993 million; ?650 million) bid for the whole club. That would have included paying off the refinancing package Americans Hicks and Gillett negotiated in January for the loan used to purchase the Reds.

Instead, in the short term, DIC is resigned to working with Hicks.

"Subject to renegotiation of a partnership agreement and subject to the stringent minority shareholder protection rights we would be prepared to accept a 49 percent shareholding in Liverpool FC,'' Staveley said Friday. "We have decided that this arrangement provides the best possible solution to the situation and would be in the best interests of the club and their loyal fans.''

Hicks is on the verge of acquiring a majority interest by buying 2 percent of Gillett's stock and is insistent on not relinquishing his position. But DIC's determination to gain full control hasn't wavered.

"Tom Hicks knows that in the long run we will be 100 percent owners of the club, but we are prepared to play a waiting game,'' Staveley said in comments that angered Hicks. "We will be able to pay the price for the financing of the club and construction of a new stadium.''

Both Hicks and Gillett were in telephone contact with Staveley on Friday, but a deal was yet to be signed.

Hicks has a team of lawyers in Dubai ready to meet with DIC's legal representatives early next week.

Hicks can block Gillett from selling because of a pre-emption agreement that says one partner can't sell his stake without the other's approval.

Liverpool fans have mounted a stream of protests against the turmoil in the Anfield boardroom, with the Kop backing the DIC bid to remove the American owners in chants at half time in Wednesday's 4-0 victory over West Ham.

But this compromise deal could only add to the uncertainty which has blighted Liverpool's season. Gillett had been offered up to $158 million, including a share of future profits, to sell his full stake and end his turbulent year in English soccer. It is unclear what he will be offered for 98 percent of his stake.

Hicks and Gillett bought Liverpool for 218.9 million pounds (then US$431 million) in March 2007, and each own 50 percent of the club.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/soccer/wires/03/08/2080.ap.eu.spt.soc.liverpool.ownership.battle.2nd.ld.writethru.0763/index.html

I hope this woman hasn't ****ed it up for us already!

..and the saga continues..