Saudi to buy 50%??

[SB]

Who gives a **** what Gary Glitter says anyway

TAXI

[red g]

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news?slug=goal-reporttomhicksapprovessaudi&prov=goal&type=lgns

The Daily Mirror claims that Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has approved the Saudi Arabian buy-out of George Gillett's stake in the club, but insisted that he will be staying put regardless of whether his fellow American decides to sell up or not.

Both Hicks and Gillett hold the power to veto any sale of shares in Liverpool. The former had previously blocked an attempt by his partner to sell his shares in the club to Dubai investment group DIC, because he felt his own position at Anfield would become weakened.

But this time the Texas-based billionaire is happy to approve Gillett's sale to Prince Faisal bin Fahd bin Abdullah al-Saud, provided the price is right.

According to the report, a source close to Hicks confirmed: “Tom would be open to considering a partnership with someone willing to buy George Gillett’s shares.

“It is still the case that the sale of any shares in Liverpool FC requires the other partner’s consent.

“Tom has made it clear, though, that he still has a long-term commitment to the club.”

Prince Faisal has stated that he is willing to pay up to £350 million for Gillett’s 50 per cent share of the Merseyside club. Gillett is scheduled to travel to Saudi Arabia this week for more talks.

[Leyton388]

Sounds good. When this Arab prince buys GG out all he has to do is put money in to force Hicks out.

[Baracus]

Sounds good. When this Arab prince buys GG out all he has to do is put money in to force Hicks out.

My understanding is its still 50/50, if one person opts to put in money to buy a player and the other doesn't it stalemate. If Hicks has debt against with the banks and the other doesn't its down to the banks again. I could be wrong.

[Vermilion]

Sounds good. When this Arab prince buys GG out all he has to do is put money in to force Hicks out.

Sounds too simple that, i don't see Hicks letting any deal go ahead without certain assurances about his own standing, if this deal go's ahead, it will be on Hicks terms, especially the bits concerning his own future standing at the club, and the ability of any new partner to force him out should they attempt to do so, he'll have that covered imo.

[andrewces38]

Sounds too simple that, i don't see Hicks letting any deal go ahead without certain assurances about his own standing, if this deal go's ahead, it will be on Hicks terms, especially the bits concerning his own future standing at the club, and the ability of any new partner to force him out should they attempt to do so, he'll have that covered imo.

Maybe ...............A very big Maybe Hicks might be the better of the 2 evils and is willing to make a success of this...............I'm not sure but wasn't it Hicks who always wanted to buy into us and Gillette joined at the last moment also wasn't it Gillette who said about the spade 60 days bollocks?...............Like i said maybe Hicks is ok and gillette is the cunt...............or is just wishfull thinking and If thats the case I cant see hicks and Prince being any better ................Hicks and Prince........................sounds like a posh clothing store

[Leyton388]

No it was Gillette who was after us for about 2 years and was told to do one by the board as he didn't have enough cash to help us move on and as a result he got hicks involved.

[andrewces38]

No it was Gillette who was after us for about 2 years and was told to do one by the board as he didn't have enough cash to help us move on and as a result he got hicks involved.

My mistake thanks for clearing that up.....................I see the board was right then...............obviously he got the cash and helped us move on

[Scratch]

It was Gillett who brought Hicks in, cos Gillett didn't have the funds...but it was Gillett who made the "Spade" comment, it was Gillett who blandly claimed the "no debt" and it was Gillett who knew Klinsmann....the three biggest bugbears in some supporters grievances...but ut was Hicks who made the statements after the Klinsmann affair thus drawing the flak.

But it is also Hicks who appears to be the driving force behind the stadium, and until the stadium is underway, Hicks will not be going anywhere...i expect one of his conditions of sale for GG's shares will be based on using the HKS designs??

[Lecter]

It was Gillett who brought Hicks in, cos Gillett didn't have the funds...but it was Gillett who made the "Spade" comment, it was Gillett who blandly claimed the "no debt" and it was Gillett who knew Klinsmann....the three biggest bugbears in some supporters grievances...but ut was Hicks who made the statements after the Klinsmann affair thus drawing the flak.

But it is also Hicks who appears to be the driving force behind the stadium, and until the stadium is underway, Hicks will not be going anywhere...i expect one of his conditions of sale for GG's shares will be based on using the HKS designs??

Gillett and Hicks are as bad as each other make no mistake in that

The suggestion elsewhere is that during the last round of refinance the banks insisted that both owners be allowed a “free run” (ie be allowed to sell to a 3rd party without veto or changing any of the existing partnership terms). IF that is the case I seriously doubt Hicks is in a position to demand any conditions of sale

[cream]

We will have a new owner by the end of the week.

[SERVO2]

We will have a new owner by the end of the week.

Which week???

Cheers

Rach

[Baracus]

Week = 7 days, by the end of the week do you mean UK week or Arab week

[cream]

By the end of this week. Apparently, due diligence has already been completed, GG is as as good as gone.

[Aza]

Hope you're right Cream; but I'll not bother holding my breath just yet mate