DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[MindGuerrillas]

NO, NO, NO.

The board and the committee are different. He has no problem with a board, he's required to have one legally. What he is saying is that he does not want the day to day operations been run by a committee. Day to day is not in the purview of the board.

NO, NO, NO as you say

He is not talking about day to day stuff. Also he is not legally required to have a board if he can acquire complete ownership as he wants. He can run it anyway he chooses then.

Day to day running of a football club requires no major decision making. They pretty much run themselves. The biggest day to day decisions made amount to who makes the tea or what type of biscuits they'd like in the office!

The CEO is responsible for any low level routine decisions. Anything higher than a routine decision goes before the board. It is here that Hicks has a problem.

[El Jefecito]

NO, NO, NO as you say

He is not talking about day to day stuff. Also he is not legally required to have a board if he can acquire complete ownership as he wants. He can run it anyway he chooses then.

Day to day running of a football club requires no major decision making. They pretty much run themselves. The biggest day to day decisions made amount to who makes the tea or what type of biscuits they'd like in the office!

The CEO is responsible for any low level routine decisions. Anything higher than a routine decision goes before the board. It is here that Hicks has a problem.

Sorry mate that just isn't true.

[Craig_H]

The board and a committee are two entirely different things.

Enlighten us.

[dawmdt]

Sorry mate that just isn't true.

Yes it is. As long as the private company has at least one director, that satisfies the requirement for having a "board". The requirement for having a secretary is gone after April 2008 and in any case the single director will normally constitute quorum for making decisions and having any such "board meetings".

[El Jefecito]

Yes it is. As long as the private company has at least one director, that satisfies the requirement for having a "board". The requirement for having a secretary is gone after April 2008 and in any case the single director will normally constitute quorum for making decisions and having any such "board meetings".

SOrry, we have to meet the requirements for a private limited company at the LFC level and a public limited company at the KOP level.

[El Jefecito]

Enlighten us.

Thought I did. The board does not have purview over day to day operations.

[dawmdt]

SOrry, we have to meet the requirements for a private limited company at the LFC level and a public limited company at the KOP level.

The details in my post meets the requirements for a private limited company.

The limited company at KOP level is incorporated in the Caymen's, who only require one Director under their company law.

[El Jefecito]

The details in my post meets the requirements for a private limited company.

The limited company at KOP level is incorporated in the Caymen's, who only require one Director under their company law.

I made some assumptions based on what we need in USA. Seems you are better informed that me

[dawmdt]

I made some assumptions based on what we need in USA. Seems you are better informed that me

lol sorry if I seemed a bit aggressive I've been out for a big meal with loads of alcohol for my birthday and came home a bit drunk happy that we won but a bit pissed those ****s are still in charge so I was ready for an argument ( <--- aimed at myself)

[El Jefecito]

lol sorry if I seemed a bit aggressive I've been out for a big meal with loads of alcohol for my birthday and came home a bit drunk happy that we won but a bit pissed those ****s are still in charge so I was ready for an argument ( <--- aimed at myself)

NO worries, your posts are class and you backup your position with good info and logic. Can't argue with that I actually learnt stuff from you!

[Alpha]

lol sorry if I seemed a bit aggressive I've been out for a big meal with loads of alcohol for my birthday and came home a bit drunk happy that we won but a bit pissed those ****s are still in charge so I was ready for an argument ( <--- aimed at myself)

Happy Birthday mate.

[AFII]

Tom Hicks emails expose Liverpool breakdown
By David Bond
Last Updated: 12:39am GMT 12/03/2008

The full extent of the breakdown in relations between Liverpool's American owners has been revealed in a series of extraordinary emails sent to a small number of the club's fans by Tom Hicks.

A day after Hicks broke off negotiations on a partnership deal with Dubai International Capital, the correspondence underlines the Dallas businessman's determination to stop George Gillett selling his shares to DIC.

In the emails, Hicks blames Gillett for the calamitous PR own-goal of approaching Jurgen Klinsmann as a replacement for manager Rafa Benitez last November before going on to criticise him for holding the club back.

"I have a large investment and plan to make a bigger one," Hicks told one fan in an email, later published on the internet. "Gillett has held us back financially, but that will change. In the end, one person must have responsibility for making decisions. It has been very difficult for George and me to agree on things (Klinsmann) and DIC wanted their people to have an equal vote on things like keeping Rafa (I will), signing players and managing the business.

"The club has not been run very well for a long time now. I intend to fix the problems."

In another email, Hicks writes: "I have taken huge risks because I believe our club can be the best in the world again.

"Gillett knew Klinsmann from Vail [Colorado]. In hindsight, it was a big mistake, but I have publicly, and privately, backed Rafa since our meeting December 16th.

"The finances will be fine. We are playing much better. DIC has been playing the press like a drum. Our new stadium will be the best in the world."

Hicks' exchanges with fans are part of a new charm offensive to persuade supporters to drop their opposition to his long-term ambitions to remain in charge at Anfield.

However, fans' groups have expressed their anger at Hicks' decision to call off talks with DIC as they closed in on a £170 million deal with Gillett for his 50 per cent stake. Hicks says he has the power to block the sale.

Les Lawson, secretary of the Liverpool Supporters' Association, said: "As far as I'm concerned, there is no way Hicks and Gillett are going to win back the trust of the supporters."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../sfnbon112.xml

[El Jefecito]

Tom Hicks emails expose Liverpool breakdown
By David Bond
Last Updated: 12:39am GMT 12/03/2008

The full extent of the breakdown in relations between Liverpool's American owners has been revealed in a series of extraordinary emails sent to a small number of the club's fans by Tom Hicks.

A day after Hicks broke off negotiations on a partnership deal with Dubai International Capital, the correspondence underlines the Dallas businessman's determination to stop George Gillett selling his shares to DIC.

In the emails, Hicks blames Gillett for the calamitous PR own-goal of approaching Jurgen Klinsmann as a replacement for manager Rafa Benitez last November before going on to criticise him for holding the club back.

"I have a large investment and plan to make a bigger one," Hicks told one fan in an email, later published on the internet. "Gillett has held us back financially, but that will change. In the end, one person must have responsibility for making decisions. It has been very difficult for George and me to agree on things (Klinsmann) and DIC wanted their people to have an equal vote on things like keeping Rafa (I will), signing players and managing the business.

"The club has not been run very well for a long time now. I intend to fix the problems."

In another email, Hicks writes: "I have taken huge risks because I believe our club can be the best in the world again.

"Gillett knew Klinsmann from Vail [Colorado]. In hindsight, it was a big mistake, but I have publicly, and privately, backed Rafa since our meeting December 16th.

"The finances will be fine. We are playing much better. DIC has been playing the press like a drum. Our new stadium will be the best in the world."

Hicks' exchanges with fans are part of a new charm offensive to persuade supporters to drop their opposition to his long-term ambitions to remain in charge at Anfield.

However, fans' groups have expressed their anger at Hicks' decision to call off talks with DIC as they closed in on a £170 million deal with Gillett for his 50 per cent stake. Hicks says he has the power to block the sale.

Les Lawson, secretary of the Liverpool Supporters' Association, said: "As far as I'm concerned, there is no way Hicks and Gillett are going to win back the trust of the 5% (i.e RTK) of intimidating, xenophobic and generally myopic supporters."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../sfnbon112.xml

I think Hicks can move us forward.

[saveferris]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/gra.../sfnletter.jpg

Looks like Mr AlAnsari's email address is either:

[email protected] or [email protected]

Do you guys think it's worth contacting him with messages of support?

I believe this link has been posted before but you can send your messages of support via the following link to DIC allegedly

http://www.thedubailife.com/index.ph...rpool_takeover

[Alpha]

I think Hicks can move us forward.

You are entitled to think so but do you really, honestly, sincerely believe that the majority of Liverpool fans ever will?