Gillet Interview

[Red Chilli]

you cant.

AF didnt say that though

I stand corrected

[bobbyfallon]

I stand corrected

[Sarb]

More total utter hypocrisy from Hicks.

Pity Hicks didn't keep his mouth shut when were at the crucial point of our season

[Assassin]

After hearing the Gillet interview several times I have come to the following conclusion.

Gillet will buy Hicks out with a loan from DIC. When the deal is complete DIC have a contractual with Gillet for 90% of the club and Gillet will end up with 10% of the club plus his investment returned

The ownership will then be:

DIC 90% and Gillet 10%

[bobbyfallon]

After hearing the Gillet interview several times I have come to the following conclusion.
Gillet will buy Hicks out with a loan from DIC. When the deal is complete DIC have a contractual with Gillet for 90% of the club and Gillet will end up with 10% of the club plus his investment returned

The ownership will then be:

DIC 90% and Gillet 10%

good lad

[barnes10]

After hearing the Gillet interview several times I have come to the following conclusion.

Gillet will buy Hicks out with a loan from DIC. When the deal is complete DIC have a contractual with Gillet for 90% of the club and Gillet will end up with 10% of the club plus his investment returned

The ownership will then be:

DIC 90% and Gillet 10%

doesn't hicks have to agree to this sale tho? or are we saying that all this posturing is to say to hicks that his best option is to sell and take a profit?

[Sarb]

I don't think anyone in the business world can stop someone else selling what belongs to that person. He had first refusal but couldn't get past the finishing line as GG said. He can't do **** all now Id guess

[Roboklopp]

aye

[scouse lad]

I don't think anyone in the business world can stop someone else selling what belongs to that person. He had first refusal but couldn't get past the finishing line as GG said. He can't do **** all now Id guess

True, but they cant make you sell either, i cant see Hicks selling. Only a 50% holding wth DIC would put pressure on Hicks.

[the rev leeroy brown]

I don't think anyone in the business world can stop someone else selling what belongs to that person. He had first refusal but couldn't get past the finishing line as GG said. He can't do **** all now Id guess

True, but they cant make you sell either, i cant see Hicks selling. Only a 50% holding wth DIC would put pressure on Hicks.

what hicks and gilette have both admitted to in the past is that neither can sell without the others permission (must be in the contract with each other) hicks had first refusal on gillettes shares but couldn't rasie the funds so gilette can now seek another buyer. HOWEVER, hicks must agree to the buyer or else gilette is stuck with his share.

the only person i see hicks selling to is gilette. That wont happen however unless gilette can find some financial backing for the move. if gilette was to purchase hicks shares and assume full control of lfc and somehow involve DIC in that deal he would need to keep their involvement a secret or else hicks would refuse to sell to him IMO.

[Lecter]

what hicks and gilette have both admitted to in the past is that neither can sell without the others permission (must be in the contract with each other) hicks had first refusal on gillettes shares but couldn't rasie the funds so gilette can now seek another buyer. HOWEVER, hicks must agree to the buyer or else gilette is stuck with his share.

the only person i see hicks selling to is gilette. That wont happen however unless gilette can find some financial backing for the move. if gilette was to purchase hicks shares and assume full control of lfc and somehow involve DIC in that deal he would need to keep their involvement a secret or else hicks would refuse to sell to him IMO.

You would need to know the exact wording of the veto

It would be highly unsual for the veto to be indefinite and unilateral

There was a post nicked from RAWK earlier in this thread that suggested that Gillett offerring Hicks his 50% and then DIC offerring to take a 49% minority stakeholding is the pre-emptive strike in a potential legal battle over the veto

I think Gillett has pretty much done everything by the book if you listen to that interview, hes gave his partner first option and it seems an open time period but Hicks has said he cant raise the funds. DIC have offerred to take a minority stakeholding its all pointing towards unreasonable behaviour on ehalf of Hicks

Hicks really does come out of this whole sorry saga as an unreasonable and untrustworthy businessman

[AFII]

You would need to know the exact wording of the veto

It would be highly unsual for the veto to be indefinite and unilateral

There was a post nicked from RAWK earlier in this thread that suggested that Gillett offerring Hicks his 50% and then DIC offerring to take a 49% minority stakeholding is the pre-emptive strike in a potential legal battle over the veto

I think Gillett has pretty much done everything by the book if you listen to that interview, hes gave his partner first option and it seems an open time period but Hicks has said he cant raise the funds. DIC have offerred to take a minority stakeholding its all pointing towards unreasonable behaviour on ehalf of Hicks

Hicks really does come out of this whole sorry saga as an unreasonable and untrustworthy businessman

Hicks has come out of more or less every deal with a sport club as an unreasonable and untrustworthy businessman so that is nothing new.

He is only in it because of the money, nothing else. He don't give a **** how many lies he tells or the traditions and fans.

If he would make more money by relegate us then he would do it without any doubt at all.

[Darth Marty]

Ok, just playing devils advocate here for a minute- It seemed likely that Hicks was going to get controlling interest for a while didnt it, then we had the GG interview in which he said he had received death threats and as a result of these threats he would no longer consider selling even 1% to Hicks. So one could conclude that the death threats had a huge bearing on how things have gone and as such those who made the threats should be applauded.

[the rev leeroy brown]

Ok, just playing devils advocate here for a minute- It seemed likely that Hicks was going to get controlling interest for a while didnt it, then we had the GG interview in which he said he had received death threats and as a result of these threats he would no longer consider selling even 1% to Hicks. So one could conclude that the death threats had a huge bearing on how things have gone and as such those who made the threats should be applauded.

what a ****ing stupid statement!!!!!

those who have made the death threats should be ****ing castrated!!!!!

[Steve101]

Ok, just playing devils advocate here for a minute- It seemed likely that Hicks was going to get controlling interest for a while didnt it, then we had the GG interview in which he said he had received death threats and as a result of these threats he would no longer consider selling even 1% to Hicks. So one could conclude that the death threats had a huge bearing on how things have gone and as such those who made the threats should be applauded.

No no no, its not on, ever, asyou well know.