Gillet Interview

[Darth Marty]

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

at least some people understand what Devils Advocate means. My faith in humanity is restored.

[Vermilion]

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.

When GG said this, not going to sell to Hicks, Because of Death threats,etc, was he not selling what was it 1% to Hicks 49% to Dic, is he saying he wont now do that because of the threats.

Or, is it that he is on about the 1st refusal option, & the fact that although he gave Hicks the chance to buy ALL his shares, he wont now do that because of the threats.

Or both, I don't know, there's more to what GG said than meets the eye, i keep thinking Hicks has found a way of affording GG's shares, prompting Dic & GG into a re-think. I mean GG's shares were only ever offered to prove Hicks could'nt afford them, thus letting in Dic.

Ah, i'm most likely as usual, reading far more into it than there is.

[Lecter]

When GG said this, not going to sell to Hicks, Because of Death threats,etc, was he not selling what was it 1% to Hicks 49% to Dic, is he saying he wont now do that because of the threats.

Or, is it that he is on about the 1st refusal option, & the fact that although he gave Hicks the chance to buy ALL his shares, he wont now do that because of the threats.

Or both, I don't know, there's more to what GG said than meets the eye, i keep thinking Hicks has found a way of affording GG's shares, prompting Dic & GG into a re-think. I mean GG's shares were only ever offered to prove Hicks could'nt afford them, thus letting in Dic.

Ah, i'm most likely as usual, reading far more into it than there is.

I think this is all designed to show Hicks to be a total tw@t (which we know)

Imagine Gillett goes to court over the veto, says I gave Hicks first option with no time limit and he wasnt able to raise the funds. I then presented him with a new partner (massively wealthy) who were prepared to take a minority holding with Hicks but he rejected them. Now Gillett says "I am getting death threats over selling to Hicks as he isnt well liked by his clubs fans and on top of this all our partnership is untenable and I want out"

I'd love to see how this would be played out in court, the veto would have to be pretty water-tight and I suspect its more ambiguous than water-tight

Thing is all this is making Hicks look like the partner from hell affecting his other businesses and future plans

I suspect dialogue is going on behind the scenes between Hicks & DIC (I'm even more convinced after DIC's comment about "being surprised by Gilletts outburst")

Hicks cant assume full control hes in an untenable partnership, hes probably badly feeling the credit crunch financially and his partner has just assassinated his character and integrity

Now if that doesnt budge Hicks I suspect the next battle ground will be over the stadium Hicks needs this for his long term plan to earn mega profits, I suspect Gillett knows this and will cause problems on this

[peekay]

I think this is all designed to show Hicks to be a total tw@t (which we know)

Imagine Gillett goes to court over the veto, says I gave Hicks first option with no time limit and he wasnt able to raise the funds. I then presented him with a new partner (massively wealthy) who were prepared to take a minority holding with Hicks but he rejected them. Now Gillett says "I am getting death threats over selling to Hicks as he isnt well liked by his clubs fans and on top of this all our partnership is untenable and I want out"

I'd love to see how this would be played out in court, the veto would have to be pretty water-tight and I suspect its more ambiguous than water-tight

Thing is all this is making Hicks look like the partner from hell affecting his other businesses and future plans

I suspect dialogue is going on behind the scenes between Hicks & DIC (I'm even more convinced after DIC's comment about "being surprised by Gilletts outburst")

Hicks cant assume full control hes in an untenable partnership, hes probably badly feeling the credit crunch financially and his partner has just assassinated his character and integrity

Now if that doesnt budge Hicks I suspect the next battle ground will be over the stadium Hicks needs this for his long term plan to earn mega profits, I suspect Gillett knows this and will cause problems on this

Do you think it will end up going to court mate.If that happens DIC and Gillet will prepare a dossier of past business practices by Hicks ( Corinthians etc) and make Hicks look like a bad owner. I am suspecting Gillet has a few skeletons up his closet as well. I think going to courts is just a threat from both sides. It will be in both sides best interest to settle it in the boardroom.

Especially for Hicks as he is in a leverage business and banks will be ****ting to lend him money, he will find it difficult to find partners as they will be worried about their public persona. DIC will be less affected as they are supported by the state.

[Alpha]

I'm even more convinced after DIC's comment about "being surprised by Gilletts outburst"

I missed that - where is this quote from?

[peekay]

I missed that - where is this quote from?

Second that.

[Ronnie]

Third that.

[scouse lad]

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

I think you are spot on, 100%. GG has offered Hicks 100% and 51% holding and he hasnt taken it, that surely frees him to sell to DIC. But my fear is Gillett may of broken off talks with DIC himself by saying "would of been good owners"

[wishiwasascouser]

I think Lecter maybe talking about the bolded paragraph in this article...

Saturday, 29 March 2008


Like a wronged spouse, George Gillett could not quite bear to mention his ex by name. And Tom Hicks is now his ex, rather than a partner in any meaningful sense of that word, in relation to Liverpool.


In an interview with a Canadian sports radio station yesterday, Gillett referred to Hicks as "my partner", but you could imagine the gritted teeth. He also referred to Hicks as "others within the ownership group", as if there are more than two of them who share Liverpool 50-50. There are not.

Most often though, in an extraordinary first public confirmation of the partnership's acrimonious break-up, Gillett refers to Hicks just as "him". Never "Tom". Or even "Mr Hicks". Not "my buddy". Just "him". The love, it is safe to assume, is over.

So how did it come to this, the end for George and Tom? And what does it mean for the future ownership of the club?

To explain the end we need look to the beginning and examine what Gillett, 69, the owner of firms that sell gourmet sausages, gardening products and ice hockey but who has a $1bn bankruptcy on his CV, saw in Hicks, 61, a Texan billionaire with a bigger paper fortune, with higher-profile sports clubs in his portfolio and with close links to powerful men such as President George W Bush.

What propelled them together was Gillett's intention to buy Liverpool for himself in 2006. The Liverpool hierarchy – the chief executive Rick Parry and the (now) former owner, David Moores – saw him as a non-starter. They did not believe he had the finance to do it on his own.

Gillett went away and came back with Hicks, the latest US tycoon transfixed by the Premier League's fantastic new TV deals and the ridiculous hype that suggests matches attract billions of viewers.

Together, with borrowed cash, they bought Liverpool in February last year. Parry cooed, prematurely, about the pair's "passion for the sport, real resources and a strong commitment".

Within months, an icy wind blew through the American financial markets. Gillett got a chill and to cut a long story short by October last year, faced with an urgent need to refinance loans that paid for the club, he realised it would be prudent to get out, especially if a quick profit from Dubai International Capital (DIC) was on the table. Unless he got out, he might be required to invest tens of millions of his own dollars, which he either does not have or cannot afford.

By November, George and Tom were on the rocks. Sad but true. Just another inevitable break-up of two US tycoons with no previous interest in football trying to cash in on one of England's most famous names. And that's when a third party started meddling in the marriage: DIC.

DIC had "previous", having been on the brink of a takeover after Gillett was sent packing the first time and before he came back with Hicks. At first glance, when DIC returned to the picture, Hicks thought he could woo the suitor, and offered a little slice of the Liverpool pie for a lot of money. No way, said DIC, which turned its attention to Gillett.

"A sweetheart" was how one Middle Eastern source described Gillett to The Independent. DIC knew Gillett wanted out.

Hicks went ahead with a £350m refinancing deal that did not carry Gillett's name or approval. Gillett stayed in touch with DIC and even agreed a sale, in principle, of his 50 per cent.

Hicks made it clear he would block that, but then explored ways he might take one per cent of Gillett's stake, with 49 per cent going to DIC. On 10 March, Hicks called that off. He was unhappy that DIC wanted to run a Hicks-DIC partnership by committee. Hicks and DIC have not spoken since.

Tom and George's relationship festered. So the latter went on Canadian radio and talked.

It is instructive to examine key phrases. He and his son, Foster, he says, will be in England for the Champions League quarter-final against Arsenal. "By God we're going to try to be a positive influence on this process," Gillett says. He talks of "him" (Hicks) as being the root cause of fans' animosity. Gillett says he has been invited by fans "to come to the famous pubs to be their guest".

George is distancing himself from Tom as quickly as he can. He even says, cryptically: "Instead of thinking about selling, I don't know, maybe we will think about buying."

What does it all mean? It is easy – and tempting – to imagine DIC pulling the strings. Not so, a source insisted to The Independent. DIC did not know the interview would happen. "But George does want an exit from the whole thing that says, 'I'm not such a bad guy after all, that's Tom,'" the source said.

The upshot? Tom and George are over but neither wants to sell their share of the house to the other. George wants to sell, but not to Tom. Tom wants no sale at all. The icy wind still blows.

And DIC still waits in the wings, a shoulder to cry on, and sell to, as and when.

Gillett-speak: George's take on the current situation

"Our goal from the beginning was to try to be supportive and to add to the lustre of this magnificent storied franchise – and what has happened this year has not done that."

"Our loss to Man U last Sunday 3-0 was a heartbreaker because we played 11 on 10. We had Mascherano thrown off when it's unclear what happened, but clearly they sent out a referee with a no-tolerance programme and we happened to make the wrong comment to the referee at the wrong time."

"I've had several conversations with fans who represent important blog sites and so forth and they are inviting me to come to the famous pubs to be their guest and see how they sing their songs, or get ready to sing their songs. And there's none of the hostility or animosity that seems to have been directed at others within the ownership group."

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/nick-harris-liverpools-dream-partnership-becomes-a-nightmare-scenario-802382.html

[enema of the state]

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

= Hicks PR people have briefed the BBC that hes still trying to fund sole ownership

= run of the mill hostile takeover posturing

see lecter's earlier post. H&G stand to tke a financial bath here. both will exit shortly when hicks has screwed the beat deal he can.

its boring, its a done deal

sit back, enjoy the champions league and wait

[NicoBernetini]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPRU1vqyF98&feature=related

[scouse lad]

= Hicks PR people have briefed the BBC that hes still trying to fund sole ownership

= run of the mill hostile takeover posturing

see lecter's earlier post. H&G stand to tke a financial bath here. both will exit shortly when hicks has screwed the beat deal he can.

its boring, its a done deal

sit back, enjoy the champions league and wait

I hope you are right mate, Im not sure Hicks wants to sell. But 40M profit now is nothing compared to say 5 year good revenue streams for tv right and the stadium being built. So im sure he wants to sit tight. We need DIC to take control of GG share. Then Hicks will be screwed.

[Bender]

Gillett said: “The relationship has been unworkable for some time. We gave our partner a long period of time to make the arrangements to try and buy us out. He, ultimately, did not get to the finish line.”

[Vermilion]

I hope you are right mate, Im not sure Hicks wants to sell. But 40M profit now is nothing compared to say 5 year good revenue streams for tv right and the stadium being built. So im sure he wants to sit tight. We need DIC to take control of GG share. Then Hicks will be screwed.

That's the point that's missed sometimes, Hicks REALLY doesn't want to sell, & he would rather someone else than Dic bought GG's half. I think there is a belief with some he is just haggling & stalling merely to hike the price.

It will take force, of some sort, accompanied by a handsome price for his shares to dislodge him imo.

[El Jefecito]

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.

No way, Hicks is your archetypal capitalist. Once he knows he is out of the game, He'll sell to whoever will give him most money.