Thread: Boardroom unrest - all media articles in here...
View Single Post
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 18th April 2008, 09:44 AM
RedinSweden's Avatar
RedinSweden RedinSweden is offline
Son of Uncle_Meat
  
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Location Location
Posts: 22,025
vCash: 40
Blog Entries: 2
RedinSweden rules harder than the ProclaimersRedinSweden rules harder than the ProclaimersRedinSweden rules harder than the ProclaimersRedinSweden rules harder than the ProclaimersRedinSweden rules harder than the ProclaimersRedinSweden rules harder than the ProclaimersRedinSweden rules harder than the ProclaimersRedinSweden rules harder than the ProclaimersRedinSweden rules harder than the ProclaimersRedinSweden rules harder than the ProclaimersRedinSweden rules harder than the Proclaimers
Re: This is the future of LFC under Hicks
Originally Posted by lifetime fan View Post
My guess, and it's a guess is that Hicks wouldn't have to use any veto until there is a formal offer for Gillet's shares.

Kay believes DIC made a formal offer on February 27, Gillet would have to inform Hicks of his intention to sell. So now Hicks would use his veto to block the sell and give him 90 days to at least match the offer on the table. At the end of the 90 days if he can not at least match DIC's offer Gillet can proceed to sell to whoever he wishes.

Like I said its only a guess but I'm hoping this is the case.
That doesn't explain him saying "George doesn't have to sell" though. I am still confused.
__________________
Originally Posted by Bill Shankly
At a football club, there’s a holy trinity – the players, the manager and the supporters. Directors don’t come into it. They are only there to sign the cheques
Reply With Quote