DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[El Jefecito]

Look, I have a lot of time for Moores. He is a fan. If I could defend him I would.

BUT

On this one, he's sold to a partnership that has split within 12 months, one is not on speaking terms, the other is struggling to finance the loan to the point of diluting assets in his other mediocre sport franchises. Who, under pressure, set the debt up under Kop Holdings rather than the club, which is a paper way of diverting ownership of debt, which really boils back to the club, as the club owes Kop Holdings and holds all the collateral!

Hicks has consistently lied. Previous ownership would avoid the direct answer, ie playing the media.

But more importantly, Hicks has no idea about football, the team, the history of the club, or it's spirit.

Can't disagree with a word of that

[AFII]

I'm talking about the collateral against which the loans are secured not the loans themselves. Moores did not have that collateral.

The collateral is Kop Holdings and Kop Holdings is just another name for Liverpool FC.

So Moores had the collateral.

[Kronenburg1892]

Can't disagree with a word of that

I understand where you're coming from, but I'm afraid I'm polarised on where I stand on this.

All the best chap.

[El Jefecito]

mate im not having a go and im not calling you a hicks apologist,your entitled to your opinion.

but your not looking at this from both sides,youve taking the stance to be the person who says hang on,how do we know hicks is that bad.

thats it,thats the only side of the coin your looking at this from,you havent flipped that coin to look at it from DICs side.

like i said,your entitled to your opinion,but your not looking at this from both sides.

Sorry mate that was not directed at you it was at Rashid.

BTW I have seen both sides of the coin and those views are well represented on here so theres no real need for me to weigh in. See my reply to Kronenburs post. I am definitely no in one camp or the other.

[Rafa Shankly]

Sorry mate that was not directed at you it was at Rashid.

BTW I have seen both sides of the coin and those views are well represented on here so theres no real need for me to weigh in. See my reply to Kronenburs post. I am definitely no in one camp or the other.

i noticed that after i posted,and tbh i know where your coming from,and you make a lot of sense once its realized what way your looking at the whole situation.

in spite of you saying both views are well represented id like to read your views from both sides of the coin rather than from the stance your taking now.

[El Jefecito]

i noticed that after i posted,and tbh i know where your coming from,and you make a lot of sense once its realized what way your looking at the whole situation.

in spite of you saying both views are well represented id like to read your views from both sides of the coin rather than from the stance your taking now.

From a pure financial muscle perspective I would much prefer DIC. I am not however convinced that they are an improvement in terms of the liverpool way. DIC made the point that their investment would not be an equity deal, i.e. they would provide the capital rather than take out loans. That's gonna save us a fortune in interest payments which would be better invested in the squad.

All the bad **** that people say about Hicks appears to be true. But DIC have thrown a few curve balls, I am seriously not impressed with Staveley who has undermined them by her leaking stuff to the press. She seems very niave and compared to Hicks when it comes to negotiating she is way out of her depth.

Hicks is in the driving seat and he will screw DIC for every last penny. We need to be realistic and realize that both of them are in the same game. To make as much money out of us as they can.

I think that we need to understand that there are two scenarios and in both of them we are better off than we are today.

Hicks, is gonna make us better but will compromise our finances in the short-term. He wants to make as much money as possible and that means we need to succeed on the field. I think he's shown that he understands that esp. with the Mascher deal but I don't think he can achieve as much as DIC can.

DIC are in the same game they want the money, this is not going to be a Godolfin deal for them. This is an investment. Do they understand the liverpool way any better than Hicks don't think so, they will have learnt from his mistakes and they will try a few superficial things, but don't doubt it these are hard nosed professionals.

Ethics in the US are ignored, this is why Hicks has no problem lying through his ass, it really is the standard modus operandi over here and I think he sees his lies as clever negotiating techniques rather than deliberately misleading the fans. That is part of the culture gap between the US and us. He has also only been exposed to American sports and I can assure you that fans attachment to teams in the US is nowhere near as intense as it is with us. There is no sport in the US which is followed anywhere close to the extent that we follow LFC. There is almost no emotional investment by fans into their teams. They just celebrate successes and that's about it. He doesn't get that yet.

Given that his background and context is based on the US it is no suprise that there have been massive faux pas. I think he is learning though, and will start to say and DO the right thing.

My position is that we need to improve 10% to win the EPL. I think Hicks can improve us 15% and DIC 30%. Either way we should be able to win the EPL.

So even if we do end up with Hicks it can still be successful, even if not as successful as under DIC.

The bottom line. Give me DIC, if not, we'll still win under Hicks.

ANother couple of points.

1/ Manure have shown us that an equity deal can work. This is the approach Hicks is using even though their debt is bigger than ours (stadium included) they've still managed to get in Rooney, Carrick, Anderson, Nani etc etc. Just because it is an equity deal does not mean it will necessarily be a problem.
2/ Arsenal have shown how to fund a new stadium deal. If we follow the same model we will be OK.
3/ I think the spending that needs to happen for us to compete is less than you would expect because a) the squad is almost complete so we are going after 1-2 first team players vs. 5-6 squad fillers and b) Rafa has anticipated the short fall in cash that was inevitable with the stadium investement and has therefore invested heavily in the reserves etc so that hopefully he can meet some of his squad needs from the reserves rather than having to buy.

This is where I am coming from, I believe there are others Steve101 for example who are of a similar mind and we all resent people like Sarb and Rashid painting us as apologists when it is obvious we have put more thought into it than they have.

BTW Long post couldn't be bothered proof reading it so hopefully you can get the jist.

[sinbad]

Liverpool talks still on
England - 13 March, 2008

Tom Hicks likely was wrong — again — about efforts to but out English Liverpool.

Hicks said talks between himself and Dubai International Capital had broken down and were off for good. They actually have been delayed until 18 March. DIC has been negotiating to take over the club from Hicks and George Gillett.

Further negotiations are scheduled to take place in Dubai.

Talks reached a stumbling block in a disagreement over who would run the club. DIC wants its people in control. Hicks has wanted to remain in control.

Hicks and Gillett originally beat DIC with a higher paying price for Liverpool in early 2007. The two offered GBP 219 million. Now DIC is offering the duo GBP 400 million.

http://www.eufootball.biz/Clubs/1303084-Liverpool-talks-still-on.html

[Sarb]

Your pathetic. All you seem to be concerned with is your opinion and how your thought of. So the guys got a different opinion, so he thinks outside the box. Does that mean he's supporting Hicks 100%? no it doesnt you moron.

Steve weren't you the one saying there is too much bickering amongst LFC fans yesterday... and then you go and slate people?! Hardly consistent are you?

Leave it out mate. Your quick to have a go at people like Rashid yourself and come out with sarcastic replies when someone posts something you don't agree with.

Don't get it personally, but then again you are a bit of a legend on LFC forums so may be you're the only one allowed to bicker with fellow LFC fans who have a different viewpoint to yours

[AFII]

SpeedyG, I think that you need to have a look at how Hicks run Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars. He don't risks a single pound of his own money. That's the bottom line.

Every pound that we will spend on players will be paid for by loans. Rafa had £45m to spend as working capital from that loan, £18m has already been spent.

Do you think that £27m net in the next three transfer windows will be enough to challenge for the title?

He will be happy as long as we qualify for the CL, a title challenge will simply cost to much money and he wouldn't make any profit if he spent money so we can challenge for the title. If he for some reason would do that then it would be paid for with more loans, remember Leeds?

Profit is much, much more important than success for Hicks, not even you can say anything other than that.

He won't spend his own money, it's as simple as that. He never has done that and never will. That is why he earns so much money.

[Rashid]

Liverpool talks still on
England - 13 March, 2008

Tom Hicks likely was wrong — again — about efforts to but out English Liverpool.

Hicks said talks between himself and Dubai International Capital had broken down and were off for good. They actually have been delayed until 18 March. DIC has been negotiating to take over the club from Hicks and George Gillett.

Further negotiations are scheduled to take place in Dubai.

Talks reached a stumbling block in a disagreement over who would run the club. DIC wants its people in control. Hicks has wanted to remain in control.

Hicks and Gillett originally beat DIC with a higher paying price for Liverpool in early 2007. The two offered GBP 219 million. Now DIC is offering the duo GBP 400 million.
http://www.eufootball.biz/Clubs/1303...-still-on.html

Complete with spelling misakes and unknwon website... that has no credibility mate with all due respect.

[pezzzer]

i still think dic will buy us lock stock and hicks is stalling for more money. the more he comes out and says that he wants controlle/be here long term all he is doing i is pushing up dics resolve and there cash offerring.

i fully believe that come may dic will be in full control, just my two penneth.

[Lecter]

I've covered that pointless times in this thread.

95% of fans care only about the team. They are the silent majority. Just because RTK is pissed off and AFII won't buy anymore replica shirts, is going to make 0 difference. The stadium will be full every week.

All this BS about selling SG etc is just scare stories from the uninformed. It has no LOGICAL basis at all. so debating it is a waste of time.

There are so many what ifs being taken as fact by those that insist that only bad things can happen.

99.67% of statistics are made up

There is no way you can quantify the feeling against Hicks

You cant say its solely down to RTK or S.O.S.

Just to counter your 5% argument the Echo did a poll recently and 90% plus wanted Hicks gone and would continue protests until he was

Even that isnt definitive of the feeling against Hicks

So dont claim some moral majority when in fact you have no real evidence of what you are talking about

[AFII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JokLDqKNQJM

Sheikh Mohamed Bin Rashid 60 Minutes, part one.

[fred_plasticine]

SpeedyG, I think that you need to have a look at how Hicks run Texas Rangers and Dallas Stars. He don't risks a single pound of his own money. That's the bottom line.

Every pound that we will spend on players will be paid for by loans. Rafa had £45m to spend as working capital from that loan, £18m has already been spent.

Do you think that £27m net in the next three transfer windows will be enough to challenge for the title?

He will be happy as long as we qualify for the CL, a title challenge will simply cost to much money and he wouldn't make any profit if he spent money so we can challenge for the title. If he for some reason would do that then it would be paid for with more loans, remember Leeds?

Profit is much, much more important than success for Hicks, not even you can say anything other than that.

He won't spend his own money, it's as simple as that. He never has done that and never will. That is why he earns so much money.

in between some hard facts you always spread bits of guesswork.
you simply presume that a cl qualification place will be enough for hicks. you simple guess that he won't make any profit if he spent enough money to win the league whereas you probably underestimate the additional income generated by the fact that we then won the title after almost 2 decades.

same goes for the leeds analogy. the re-finance plan determines whether we'll be doing fine or follow leeds down the road. yet that plan remains a secret so far. 442 ran a story about leeds and their financial mess where it became clear that they had no financial strategy whatsoever. plan a was winning and a guaranteed cl place, plan b wasn't there, the emergency plan was selling players.
is hicks a gambler like the leeds owners were? you presume he is but there's no evidence whatsoever that he will as there is no evidence whatsoever that he won't.

[dawmdt]

2 aspects to this how much capital is required and can it be provided out of debt alone. Maybe.

The equity model has worked for Manure and the banks are comfortable that we can manage the loan, so where exactly the problem.

Contrary to what people believe, Banks have actually lent money to people who they have no chance of repaying the loan. Just because the bank gives you a loan, it doesn't mean they are 100% confident you'll repay it. As long as they have security then they'll give the money out.

Isn't Hicks' security the players?

The two banks are comfortable that the risk they've taken on with this loan is suitably secured and that the borrowers have a reasonably good chance of paying it back but as long as their risk is secured the banks couldn't care less. I believe the reason the debt's been structured as it is, is because if it defaulted (or was going to) then the holding company has a single asset (Liverpool FC) to sell to meet the loan. If the whole debt had been on the club then the club has loads of juicy assets (players, stadium, training grounds etc) it can sell off to meet the loan. Banks thrive on their reputation (think: Northern Rock) in the marketplace and RBS I'm certain wanted no part of potentially breaking up a massive club like Liverpool in the near future.

DIC's interest in the club has already stabilised things with the banks - they know if Hicks gets into trouble, DIC are likely to come in and save the club I'm pretty certain (although this is speculation on my part) a good portion of banks have predicted better money making opportunities with DIC than Hicks so don't want to piss DIC off by giving TH too many easy breaks...

MOORES COULD NOT GET THE LOANS. THATS WHY HE SOLD

I think he could have got the loans; I think the risk to the club would have been massive (eg Leeds)