View Single Post
  #4806 (permalink)  
Old 15th May 2008, 02:13 PM
Kennys_spell Kennys_spell is offline
Forumite
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 341
vCash: 500
Kennys_spell is likedKennys_spell is likedKennys_spell is likedKennys_spell is liked
Re: DIC: takeover thread

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend View Post
Wow. Great response. Give yourself a gold star.

You used the car example and said one can sell the car to anyone. I used the same example and said one can't sell the car to anyone if that one owns only 50% of the car with the other 50% being owned by someone else.

If it is too difficult for you to understand, stop arguing with people who can understand.

I used the car as an example of "borrowing money" - it was a clear and real life situation of borrowing money. A situation that I thought you'd be able to understand. It's exactly the same for Gillett and Hicks but on a much larger scale.

According to the logic you have applied to your example, Gillett would NEVER be able to sell to anyone but Hicks. Thats simply wrong - yes, there are stipulations and safeguards in the agreement, but only for one or the other to have first choice or to be able to 'vet' the prospective new buyer. It's nothing to do with the banks - they have a loan out to an individual who is responsible to the bank for repaying that loan or for providing assurances that the loan if sold on can be repaid.

So YES, Gillett CAN sell to whoever he wants - within the terms of the agreements in place. Even if HICKS comes up with an offer equal to that of DIC, Gillett can say no thanks to his offer. He can simply say - No thanks bud, I've changed my mind - I'm keeping it. No problem, No pressure. No Deal.

Lets just agree to disagree here. I don't want to get into a "you said this" and "I said that".

Best if we all just wait and see how it turns out.
Reply With Quote