Gillet Interview

[Steve001]

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.

I guess that is the only explanation but as mentioned numerous times above, it looks like whatever deadline was in place, it appears to have passed, Ie: with GG saying he gave Hicks plenty of time but he never crossed the line (or words to that effect). Therefore unless there is a total power of veto they can both use at anytime, Hicks should be between a rock and a hard place , he says hopefully !

[Lecter]

Taken from elsewhere

All 'interested parties' have now been made aware, publicly, that Thomas O. Hicks was offered George N. Gillett's shares with reasonable terms and he was not able to complete the transaction.

Think about the significance of this.... in legal terms.

[MattB]

I think it's likely that the partnership agreement does have a clause giving first dibs to the partner if the other one wants to sell - but that this clause does not set a finite period of exclusivity (which would make it hard to enforce indefinitely - hence DIC thinking they have a way round it). I think that Gillett worked with his lawyers/DIC and arrived at the idea of giving Hicks a time limited option on his shares as a way of getting round that clause without having to challenge it in court.

That would explain Gillett going to such lengths to stress what a reasonable partner he has been in not putting pressure on Hicks etc etc. Preparation for legal arguments should Hicks attempt to challenge a sale to DIC?

or in other words - what he said ^^^

[saveferris]

ermm how about from DIC?

Whilst a possibility its a little presumptuous, something i wanted to avoid as too many assumptions and false increases in expectation come from it. albeit its a view assumed by many on here.

DIC would have to be on pretty good relations with GG to gain control in this manner.

[MattB]

DIC would have to be on pretty good relations with GG to gain control in this manner.

Not necessarily. If it suits G's agenda he'll get into bed with anyone. Look at how Hick's came on the scene in the first place. Marriage of convenience...

[MattB]

Taken from elsewhere

The same fella also said this:

Take it as a given that two subsidiaries of Dubai Holdings will eventually assume control of Liverpool Football Club. Maybe not today, but "for the good of tomorrow".

Whatever that means

[Vermilion]

Not necessarily. If it suits G's agenda he'll get into bed with anyone. Look at how Hick's came on the scene in the first place. Marriage of convenience...

Yes, But, A Clever man once said "Choose your Partners Wisely".




Now, Who was it who said that..............

[MattB]

[/B]

Yes, But, A Clever man once said "Choose your Partners Wisely".




Now, Who was it who said that..............

Another wise man once said "Hindsight is always 20:20"

My point was that I don't think G would have to be bum chums with DIC to team up with them if he thought it was in his best interests to do so...

[Vermilion]

Another wise man once said "Hindsight is always 20:20"

My point was that I don't think G would have to be bum chums with DIC to team up with them if he thought it was in his best interests to do so...

Yes, & in Hindsight, I agree. I'm still VERY surprised we've heard nothing from Thicks personally, or if not personally then from someone in his camp, rather than what we've had so far, which is a.....BBC 'Understands' statement, that Hicks plans total control, attributed to no one in particular, or even just a repeat of old news.

[G]

Taken from elsewhere
Quote:
All 'interested parties' have now been made aware, publicly, that Thomas O. Hicks was offered George N. Gillett's shares with reasonable terms and he was not able to complete the transaction.

Think about the significance of this.... in legal terms.

Which means he no longer has first refusal as he was offered the shares first but couldn't find the wedge,so its now open season on Gilletts shares

[Vermilion]

How Setanta report GG's Interview, just a little more provocative in their wording.


Gillett: Hicks robbed Reds of DIC
by Ben Blackmore, 28 March 2008

Gillett: Hicks robbed Reds of DIC

Liverpool co-owner George Gillett has lifted the lid on his ‘unworkable’ partnership with Tom Hicks, insisting his partner has robbed The Reds of a good owner in DIC.

Gillett wants to sell his share of the club, citing Hicks’ comments to the media – particularly regarding the sounding out of Jurgen Klinsmann – as the reason for his decision.

The American revealed he receives 2,000 letters per week regarding comments made by Hicks - who many Kopites blame for derailing Liverpool's season.


Gillett admits he would be loathe to sell his share to his partner, and he believes Liverpool fans are the ones who have been punished by Hicks’ decision to block DIC’s bid.

[Redlife]

It's a sad interview. The most telling thing about it is the big sigh GG lets out when the question of LFC is brought up.


I'm sure he's hardly blameless in this whole saga, but GG comes across quite well from our point of view.

[Vermilion]

It's a sad interview. The most telling thing about it is the big sigh GG lets out when the question of LFC is brought up.


I'm sure he's hardly blameless in this whole saga, but GG comes across quite well from our point of view.

DIC Did say they were BOTH in Dreamland at one stage, Can't blame him for aiming big i guess, But must have held things up too i suppose at that stage.

[Kenneth]

It's completely disgusting that people have phoned his personal home number and then threatened him and his family. Totally shameful. He suggets that this is the reason he won't sell to Hicks. Some people are no better than animals.

[Kenneth]

"There's a lot going on here, much too complicated for me to try and handicap" - Any idea what he could mean by this?