DIC latest - the largely wild speculation thread

[redstaralex]

I've just had a terrible thought ..... g&h have taken out loans to start building the stadium and nothing has happened, if they sell to DIC do they keep the loan? which I'm guessing is held by Kop holdings or some other company? i.e. are they using us as a cash cow on top of the money they'll make on the sale? I actually thought that they'd sell before signing Mascherano as there's no point paying if you're selling up as the new buyer will have to pay instead

[sitoca]

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

Hicks can always get a loan from that person, buy it from GG then sell the shares back to whoever loan him the $$ for a dollar.

[MattB]

I've just had a terrible thought ..... g&h have taken out loans to start building the stadium and nothing has happened, if they sell to DIC do they keep the loan? which I'm guessing is held by Kop holdings or some other company? i.e. are they using us as a cash cow on top of the money they'll make on the sale? I actually thought that they'd sell before signing Mascherano as there's no point paying if you're selling up as the new buyer will have to pay instead

They won't have drawn down the funds yet. And even if they did, the added debt on the business would reduce its overall value and therefore the price they would get from any buyer. Swings and roundabouts really, but taking any money from the loans (even if they could keep the money for themselves, which I doubt) would not make them any better off

[MattB]

Hicks can always get a loan from that person, buy it from GG then sell the shares back to whoever loan him the $$ for a dollar.

Given Gillett's comments about the weaknbess of the dollar affecting investment but raising the overall value of the club, I doubt they will be able to find a US investor willing to take on the risk. The shares would cost more than normal to a US investor and would be very difficult to invest in (which is vital to maximising the vakue of the investment)

[sinbad]

Weak dollar forces Gillett towards Anfield exit

By Ian Herbert
Friday, 14 March 2008

Liverpool co-owner George Gillett has provided the first explanation of why he wants to sell his 50 per cent share in the club, revealing that the weakness of the dollar is making it difficult to invest.


In a revelation which hints at why, with costs of a planned new Stanley Park stadium soaring because of increased steel costs, his co-owner Tom Hicks has also been willing to consider a Dubai International Capital (DIC) investment and is speaking to other minority investors, Gillett said the strength of the pound against the dollar had created a different landscape from the one he and Hicks saw when they took over at Anfield last year.

"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 at the IMG World Congress of Sports in America last night.

"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 businesses."

Gillett also owns the Montreal Canadians hockey franchise.

Widespread concerns about the outlook for the US economy saw the dollar drop yesterday to a new low against the euro, although Gillett also provided the first real evidence that his relationship with Hicks might be contributing to their split. Responding to questions about Hicks, Gillett wryly said he once had heard good advice, which he repeated: "Choose your partner wisely."

Gillett added: "He [Hicks] is a great guy – but he has just got a different perspective on the media" – a reference to Hicks's greater willingness to make public pronouncements about Liverpool which, such as in the case of his courtship of Jürgen Klinsmann, have backfired at times.

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 Dubai consortium to silent investors. Despite the friction between himself and Hicks and furious protests by fans at Anfield, Gillett insists he still enjoys being involved with Liverpool.

Gillett, whose wide sporting portfolio also has him as 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."

Hicks earlier this week terminated talks with DIC, claiming it wanted the club managed "by a committee" with an influence on transfer policy.

Gillett initially wanted to buy Liverpool alone, but brought in Hicks' financial muscle when he found that could not do the deal himself.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/weak-dollar-forces-gillett-towards-anfield-exit-795829.html?r=RSS

[AFII]

The reason to why DIC offers so much money for Gillett's shares is probably because they want it to be as difficult as possible for Hicks to match it.

As soon as they bought Gillett's shares they will bid a lower amount for Hicks shares because they will then sit on all the aces.

So in total they won't pay that much over the market price for the club.

[barnes10]

The reason to why DIC offers so much money for Gillett's shares is probably because they want it to be as difficult as possible for Hicks to match it.

As soon as they bought Gillett's shares they will bid a lower amount for Hicks shares because they will then sit on all the aces.

So in total they won't pay that much over the market price for the club.

this is surely obvious to hicks and a reason why he's only buying time now. if he cannot get an investor to fund his buying of gg, then he'll sell out at the same time as gg will he not? otherwise being in a 50-50 with DIC has to be a nightmare scenario for him

[Jayesh87]

So GG says pick your partners carefully and the american dollar is weak so makes investment hard outside the US.

Hmmm making his excuses for a sale??

[Tee]

So GG says pick your partners carefully and the american dollar is weak so makes investment hard outside the US.

Hmmm making his excuses for a sale??

Seems like it - but who will he sell up to?? I just hope that fat **** Hicks does not get the money to buy him out.

[Sadgeek]

Current financial economy would suggest it to be unlikely that anyone from the US would be willing to buy into this at the moment.

Money should be on nations which are doing ok/well, which limits dramatically who could be involved.

I can't see many companies looking to expand at the moment, with many of my clients looking to stabilise and re-inforce brand name

[Skillz]

Current financial economy would suggest it to be unlikely that anyone from the US would be willing to buy into this at the moment.

Money should be on nations which are doing ok/well, which limits dramatically who could be involved.

I can't see many companies looking to expand at the moment, with many of my clients looking to stabilise and re-inforce brand name

Anyone with enough money should be smart enough to know that investing with Hicks, in LFC, is a poisened chalice. We do not want him or his mates.

In short, he should just do the right thing and **** off

[El Jefecito]

Current financial economy would suggest it to be unlikely that anyone from the US would be willing to buy into this at the moment.

Money should be on nations which are doing ok/well, which limits dramatically who could be involved.

I can't see many companies looking to expand at the moment, with many of my clients looking to stabilise and re-inforce brand name

What line of work are you in?

BTW I see similar here in the US. Expense reduction is a major focus of many corps over here.

[Lecter]

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

I seriously doubt whether anyone could just veto indefinitely, I'd imagine there would be some time limit

[Sadgeek]

IT Contractor, working for large firm of Accountants (one of the big 4 in the uk), so out and about with their clients a lot.

Wife is an accountant, and agrees that she can't see much growth in the UK/EU happening over the next 12-18 months.

Mind you, we're not rolling in cash either, so perhaps we're not the right people to take financial advice from

[El Jefecito]

IT Contractor, working for large firm of Accountants (one of the big 4 in the uk), so out and about with their clients a lot.

Wife is an accountant, and agrees that she can't see much growth in the UK/EU happening over the next 12-18 months.

Mind you, we're not rolling in cash either, so perhaps we're not the right people to take financial advice from

That's completely consistent with what I am seeing. No opportunity for organic growth, can't afford acquisitions, so expense reduction is all the rage. I'm sure you've noticed that all of the banks caught up in the sub-prime fiasco are being bailed out eastern sovereign funds. No american companies can afford it and so the money is coming from the middle east / china etc.

The parallels with our situation are ironic. We've got a sovereign fund knoking on the door (DIC) Instead we are dealing with paupers who will be in recession for the next 5 years