DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[Darth Marty]

So, any news of the substantiated variety regarding this DIC takeover then?

[AFII]

So, any news of the substantiated variety regarding this DIC takeover then?

No.

Looks like they have stopped leaking details to the media, not even the Echo reports anything of note anymore.

[red g]

So, any news of the substantiated variety regarding this DIC takeover then?

see page 5, 7, 12, 34, 46 , 73, 88. 92. 94

[red g]

No.

Looks like they have stopped leaking details to the media, not even the Echo reports anything of note anymore.

do u think they have faile din the aggresive takeover and its back to the drawing board for the next assaoult?

[kanban111]

So do i,think it's the beginning of the end,thank f*ck,i think Hicks position is not too far from being untenable with the current feelings of the fans,i honestly believe he just wants an improved offer,how much more i don't know,450 mil for the whole thing might do it.

[AFII]

Liverpool co-owner Gillett blames weak dollars for stifling investment
Posted: Thursday Mar 13, 2008 8:04 PM

DANA POINT, California (AP) -Liverpool co-owner George Gillett said the weak U.S. dollar makes it difficult to invest in the English Premier League club.

Since acquiring a 50 percent stake last March, Gillett, who also owns the NHL's Montreal Canadiens, has been frustrated as the dollar has slumped.

"We've invested internationally with Liverpool and with Montreal in Canada, and it's had a very positive effect on both of them from the standpoint of strengthening the value,'' Gillett said in an interview with Sports Business Journal at the IMG World Congress of Sports.

"On the other hand, it's made it more difficult in terms of investing in those businesses because the dollar is really tremendously weak compared to where we started. It just costs us more to send money to those franchises, those business.''

Widespread concerns about the outlook for the U.S. economy saw the dollar drop on Thursday to a new low against the euro.

It is the first indication why Gillett has been trying to sell his stake in the club. Co-owner Tom Hicks has blocked the purchase by Dubai International Capital.

Hicks, who also owns baseball's Texas Rangers and the NHL's Dallas Stars, wants to buy a small percentage of Gillett's stock so he will gain a controlling interest and reduce the United Arab Emirates consortium to silent investors.

Despite the friction between the Americans and furious protests by fans, Gillett insists he still enjoys being involved with Liverpool.

Gillett, the majority owner of the Gillett Evernham Motorsports NASCAR team, said, "I'm really enjoying all three (teams), but for different reasons. In Liverpool, it's a long distance away and there's been a fair amount of controversy over there.

"In spite of that, the boys are playing very well and I'm proud of them.''

Despite a disappointing Premier League campaign, Liverpool has reached the quarterfinals of the Champions League. The Reds host Reading in the Premier League on Saturday as it looks to secure the fourth qualification berth for next season's lucrative Champions League.

The Canadiens have moved into first place in the NHL's Northeast Division.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...399/index.html

[Alpha]

From the Telegraph, 29/02/08.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/mai.../sfnliv329.xml

What is not clear is whether Hicks or Gillett has the right to block the other from selling out. It is thought the pre-emption rights last for 90 days, at the end of which either could sell to a third party.

The above quote was printed by the DIC-friendly Telegraph which might indicate the 90-day veto does exist, or it might not.

If it does exist, you have to wonder who's interests it would be in to confirm. Hicks probably wouldn't need the pressure of the ticking clock while he privately seeks an alternative and DIC probably wouldn't want to encourage rival investors by drawing attention to a deadline.

[jakle]

Its been said before and I say it here again - I would be stunned if either of Hicks & Gillette can simply veto the potential sale of eithers share of the club with no possible strings attached (i.e a 90 day veto clause). Without such a fall back option either party would have been putting too much control over their share of the club in the hands of the other and i think they would have been reluctant to allow that to happen. But thats just my opinion.

[carlton]

Its been said before and I say it here again - I would be stunned if either of Hicks & Gillette can simply veto the potential sale of eithers share of the club with no possible strings attached (i.e a 90 day veto clause). Without such a fall back option either party would have been putting too much control over their share of the club in the hands of the other and i think they would have been reluctant to allow that to happen. But thats just my opinion.

Yes, there must be some strings attached otherwise GG could never sell his stake. Syrely Hicks cant veto endlessly? Given how quiet its gone perhaps all parties have agreed to a press embargo or some time out. I wont believe its over until DIC say its over.

[Guest]

Why do you bother posting in the thread then?

You're an imbecile mate, always have been.

[desertscouser]

Personally i think the 90 days thing is bolloxs and has no link to the veto.

It's impossible to know what's true and what's not, such is the huge level of misinformation/guesses fed to us by the various media outlets.

[desertscouser]

Well it had to be said. He's just an irritant who never goes away

[Sarb]

The 90 days thing doesn't make sense. It can only be Hicks that has the rights to buy Gillett's shares. That means it's only Hicks who can put forward the money to buy them. So, he can't introduce another partner to Gillett and say 'sell your shares to him'. That would be the same as Gillett selling to DIC no?

As I see it Hicks has to find someone willing to loan him £200m odd to buy Gillett's shares but they'll have no stake in the club at all. He can't say sell 49% to someone as that's not what his rights are.

I'm sure he'll struggle to find any dumb idiot who lends him that much money for no formal stake or right of say

[Morten_nogamst_Pedersen]

Dunno if this has been posted before

DIC exec quits following controversy

By Simeon Kerr in Dubai

Published: March 11 2008 10:10 | Last updated: March 11 2008 14:33

Dubai International Capital on Tuesday said the chief executive of its emerging markets division had left the company.

DIC said Rabih Khoury was leaving ”with mutual consent” to pursue other interests. Anand Krishnan, chief operating officer, would fill his role on an interim basis.


The announcement comes the day after Liverpool owner Tom Hicks blocked the sale of his co-owner’s shares to DIC. DIC was to buy George Gillett’s 49 per cent stake in the club.

DIC denied Mr Khoury’s departure was related to the blocked sale.

Mr Khoury is a Liverpool fan who has been photographed attending matches with Sameer al-Ansari, DIC chief executive. Mr Khoury led DIC’s investments into emerging markets, including the Middle East and Asia.

DIC is a private equity firm owned by firm Dubai’s ruler Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum.

It has assets of $13bn and plans to treble its $1.5bn in regional holdings over the next few years as developed markets weaken and western suspicion of the intentions of sovereign wealth funds grows.

DIC has three main divisions: a private-equity buy-out arm; the Global Strategic Equities Fund that takes large positions in publicly-traded stocks; and the emerging markets division.

During a conference speech in Dubai last week, Mr Ansari had to clarify off-the-cuff remarks that further injections of capital along the lines of Abu Dhabi’s $7.5bn investment into Citigroup might not be enough to rescue the bank.

His comments helped drive the largest US lender’s stock price to its lowest level for nearly a decade after an analyst report also forecast further writedowns at the bank. The next day DIC issued a statement saying it had never expressed an opinion on Citi’s “financial condition”.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/996934e6-ef50-11dc-8a17-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

[pezzzer]

i think the one thing that is clear is that hicks DOES have a veto on gillets share option.the other clear thing is that veto will only be for a set time.

hicks cant indefinately block gg selling his shares,that would be crazy as there not hicks shares to decide over, the 90 day limit (90 days at the most imo) is simply there to allow the other party to find the investment and match any current bid for the shares in question.

DIC arent stupid and they know that hicks cant get anywhere near there bid and so are sitting tight imo with a press embagoor possibly the deal is aggreed and this is a time of due dilligence, all i think is dic will be in full control come august imho.