Quote:
Originally Posted by edinjapan
Everything you say makes sense except for one thing.
In order to secure finances against the club at whatever rate, Hicks needs full control. Or he needs to sign over his own half, which is owned by the loan arrangers already in reality. If G won't sell to him as he has stated, why doesn't DIC buy GG's half now? To allow TH to keep some face?
So the question for all of us is, Hick's must think he still has a chance of getting Gilett's half. Why is this?
|
As far as im aware once a third party (Dubai Holdings) had made a bid for one of the partners (Hicks and Gillett) shares in the company then the partner was obliged to offer his shares at the same value to the other partner.
Its a confusing way of saying if Dubai Holdings have made a bid for Gilletts shares then as part of the initial purchase agreement then Gillett has to offer Hicks his shares.
I get a feeling Tom Hicks is thinking of going down the way of court proceedings if he can manage to raise the funds.
Lets say for example Hicks manages to get outside investment and offers £200 million for Gilletts shares. Gillett has already said he wont sell to Hicks so therefore Hicks can try and take Gillett to court for been in breach of their agreement and he can prove he has the money available.
Whilst Hicks does not have the finance available then he can not down the route of court proceedings.
Dubai Holdings do not want it to go down the route of court action because this will purely drag out the situation and they want to ideally purchase the club asap so they can help the club in the summer and not let Liverpool FC suffer thanks to Tom Hicks.
This is only my personal opinion but i think if it looked like it was going to go to court then i wouldnt be surprised to Dubai Holdings pull out.
I dont know the reason why Dubai Holdings have not bought Gilletts shares not but it is obviously to do with the 'power of veto' installed into the contract the two agreed to when they purchased the club.