Gillet Interview

[MattB]

More likely he told Hicks he had until x date to stump up for his shares and that date has now passed - allowing him to talk openly about it as it is no longer an option

[Vermilion]

More likely he told Hicks he had until x date to stump up for his shares and that date has now passed - allowing him to talk openly about it as it is no longer an option

GG does allude to that yes, with his mention of Hicks not getting over the finishing line, points to there being a deadline.

Only query is....If that was the case why have DIC not bought GG out yet, with the deadline passed. (veto?)

[dom9]

Because Hicks is a dick, and as Gillette has said has made it very awkward for Dubai to take over.

Of course. Silly me.

[Roboklopp]

Why are people getting worked up by the BBC article? GG said that it's not possible to sell even 1% to Hicks now and from what he said Hicks knows it as well

I'm not stressing about the BBC article. Someone always tries to come and piss on some positive takeover news. I'll take comfort in the fact that GG made it quite clear that there is no way the Hicks will get majority control of Liverpool

GG is the one out of the two that I actually have a little faith in

dunno

[Steve001]

Confused!

Anybody have any thoughts on this.

“I: To be clear - the Dubai interest was with you, and he effectively blocked that possibility for you. Is that accurate?
GG: Well, that's another one of the points. (Laughs)
I: Is it accurate, though?
GG: He threatened to. “

This says to me that Hicks ‘only threatened’ to block it. If he only threatened that means he did not do it and so if he did not, why then would DIC not have bought GG’s 50%?

[Roboklopp]

dunno

do know it dont merit a new thread tho

[Imy]

Of course. Silly me.

[AFII]

GG does allude to that yes, with his mention of Hicks not getting over the finishing line, points to there being a deadline.

Only query is....If that was the case why have DIC not bought GG out yet, with the deadline passed. (veto?)

DIC want to buy the whole club or at least get a big majority, something like 75-80% of the shares would be my guess.

Hicks still have to offer his shares to Gillett first if he want to sell and this,

Is it feasible to buy Hicks out, or more of a wish?

GG: It's hard to say until you put something in writing or you put the money in the bank

sounds like Gillett will get money from someone, DIC?, to buy Hicks shares.

In short, Gillett will buy out Hicks and DIC will give him the money to do it and then they will buy something like 75-80% of the shares from Gillett.

Fits in with the minority shareholder thing to.

That is my take on it.

[Vermilion]

Anybody have any thoughts on this.

“I: To be clear - the Dubai interest was with you, and he effectively blocked that possibility for you. Is that accurate?
GG: Well, that's another one of the points. (Laughs)
I: Is it accurate, though?
GG: He threatened to. “

This says to me that Hicks ‘only threatened’ to block it. If he only threatened that means he did not do it and so if he did not, why then would DIC not have bought GG’s 50%?

Could it be that Hicks threatened to block if GG tried to go ahead with the sale, but GG did'nt or has'nt gone ahead with it yet. So it's still hanging there as a threat to GG not to proceed down that road.

[Roboklopp]

FFS

1 day back & I'm bored of this ****e again.

[barnes10]

perhaps there's an impasse right now whilst lawyers look into the strength of this veto. maybe hicks has only threatened it and gg avoids stating that hicks cannot veto it as neither side knows how enforceable it is.

maybe its not an outright veto as such but is something connected with this right to buy the other out in the event of a sale. like a temporary blocking of ggs sale to dic for a specified period of time (90 days anyone?) whilst he raises the cash to buy him out himself. this could mean one of two things; that its a bit of a mexican standoff at the minute as dic havent actually bid yet - and therefore hicks hasnt actually vetoed - but instead he's thretened that if they did bid then he'll do all he can to raise the cash and block the sale and take the club 100%. dic are holding back with their official bid and would instead prefer to buy 100% at the start because if they did bid but he was able to match it then they've lost the club for good. i think they're worried that the ****er can actually buy us.

alternatively, they have bid and we are in this veto period but its looking pretty clear that hicks can't raise the funds and will soon - or already is - powerless to stop dic buying gillett.

now if the latter is true, it doesnt mean that dic have to buy out gg and then be in bed with hicks as equal partners. that's just a possible starting position. at this stage, dic have a greatly strengthened hand when negotiating with hicks over a sale price as its clear that he has nothing to gain anymore by hanging on. he has been forced out of dreamland if you like. if he stayed around he'd just be diluted into a minority shareholder which isnt going to be what he wants.

who knows eh...

[Woobus]

BBC Sport understands Hicks is aiming to take sole control

Checked the BBC site and didnt see that mentioned, was it on the news or just my bad eye sight?

[Lecter]

Could it be that Hicks threatened to block if GG tried to go ahead with the sale, but GG did'nt or has'nt gone ahead with it yet. So it's still hanging there as a threat to GG not to proceed down that road.

What we have here is deadlock

Hicks want Gilletts shares but cant afford them

Gillett wants to sell to DIC but Hicks has threatened to veto

Hicks stamped his feet and essentially advised he would dictate future partnership / ownership, Giletts bitch slapped him and told him the veto is a hollow threat and you cant afford / dont have enough time for full ownership

So where do we go from here?

They cannot work together thats clear and that puts both parties in a precarious position, they are vulnerable becuse they aint united

I'm fairly certain they will both exit stage left shortly, they run the risk of losing everything by hanging on with no common goals / direction

[Jayesh87]

Checked the BBC site and didnt see that mentioned, was it on the news or just my bad eye sight?

Liverpool co-owner reveals split

Fresh doubts have been raised over the future of Liverpool after co-owner George Gillett revealed relations with partner Tom Hicks are now "unworkable".

BBC Sport understands Hicks is aiming to take sole control of the club, while investment group Dubai International Capital also wants to invest.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/foot...ol/7318780.stm

[Woobus]

Cheers Milky, I should have gone to spec savers.