Do you want Dubai International Capital?

[havarantagain]

If DIC do take over and I think its still a big if, I hope they arrange a public execution for Parry (especially) and 50 lashes for Moore's for cocking he origional deal up. I'd hope the two yanks don't make a profit from there tenure either.

[Stouffer]

Originally Posted by Stouffer Hello McFly? Is there any evidence that DIC are interested in buying Liverpool Football CLub?

I don't think so either Stouff, you sexy cunt.

[billybonzo]

Originally Posted by SimonGodders Well I voted DIC. I've lost heart over the past six months at how this great institution (LFC) has fallen, primarily due to the incompetence and lies from the American owners and Parry. A life long love affair has begun to falter of late, it's really saddened me to see the shambles we're turning into, like watching an accident in slow motion. I was very sceptical of DIC, particularly around the infamous 'leaked document', but TBH, they're a business that (IMO) reeks of professionalism and that's something we're sorely lacking at the moment. I don't see DIC as saviours, but just want people in charge that act and treat us (the supporters) and the club with respect, but just importantly, whether he stays or goes, treat Rafa with the dignity and respect that he deserves for the success that he has brought us. Cheers, Simon

Good 1st post.

[G Richards]

Given what I've seen of G&H thus far, I'd like new owners.

If DIC came in with a clear manifesto outlining what they would do, then I'd welcome that. If they came in and didn't outline their plans, then the experience with G&H would tell me to be cautious and adopt a 'wait and see' approach.

[Rashid]

DIC stayed silent from the start and I think they respected how we operated from the start.... they did make a statement at the end though.

[Stouffer]

Originally Posted by Rashid DIC stayed silent from the start and I think they respected how we operated from the start.... they did make a statement at the end though.

Exactly. Are they in for us? Is there any evidence to suggest that they are interested? Is the club even up for sale?

What we want doesn't mean fuck all.

I want some pie, problem is the pie shop is closed so I'm fucked aren't I.

I give up.

[The Chimp]

As I've mentioned very briefly before I know a fair bit about the Makhtoums having done a paper on their utilisation of sport to enhance the Dubai brand. I'll be totally honest and state that out of all the potential investors - real and imagined - I'd always plump for them, and this is whether they'd already shown an interest or not. It was almost (for me) unbelievable for them to show an interest in the club (as it was as if Christmas had come early).

As far as I see it, they're ultra ultra professional and about as sharp as you can get with regards to sport. Their leveraging and understanding of sports promotion and what is required to get the most out of their investments is second to none (I lecture in this stuff, so without sounding arrogant would hope I'm not a complete dickhead when it comes to this type of thing). I would be very surprised if they came back in, as I really though that ship had sailed. If they do come in again, it would seem that they see a lot of potential in our club. It is a certaintly that our brand value is woefully undervalued/underutilised at the moment.

Of all their sports interests, I'd say (as unbiased as I can be) we'd be their most prominent should this happen. Downsides . . .? To be honest I'm not sure. Their track record is excellent. Would they sell us after a period of time? I've no idea, but I honestly wonder why they would do so if we were continually successful given the networking, advertisment, and kudos associated with one of the oldest and most recognised brands in all sport. We do well it reflects well on Dubai and I think that is exactly why the wanted us in the first place - the association rather than to make a lot of money.

As I said they realise the importance of leveraging, so if they came in I'd be very very surprised if the stadium and team weren't sorted out very quickly. It wouldn't be the impasse that has existed the past twelve months, that's for sure.

[Rashid]

This article sums it all up for me.

US Owners To Sell Liverpool To Dubai Group? There is speculation in the English media today that George Gillett and Tom Hicks could be ready to sell Liverpool to Dubai Intermational Capital (DIC). Could the ownership of Liverpool be about to change hands again? That is what is being speculated today in the English media, in a story that underlines the extent to which top-flight English football is as much about financial figures as 4-4-2. The reasons why Liverpool could be sold for the second time in a year include the repercussions from America's sub-prime mortgage and housing crises and eroded bank confidence. It seems from reports in The Guardian and The Observer, among other sources, that Liverpool's American owners, George Gillett Jr and Tom Hicks, are encountering difficulties in refinancing £350million of debt incurred in the taking over and running of the football club. They are facing steeply rising costs for building a new stadium, while manager Rafael Benitez is demanding funds for new players. In response, Hicks and Gillett have been attempting to transfer the debt, for which they are personally liable, on to the club itself. City sources think it will be very difficult for them to achieve this before the loan's due date at the end of February. And if the Americans fail to meet that deadline, they could have an escape route in Dubai. It is understood that the investment group, Dubai International Capital, is close to lodging an offer to buy out the two Americans, probably for about £500million. Takeover discussions are thought to be due before the end of this month, according to the newspapers. DIC were pipped to the post by Gillett and Hicks last year when it had seemed near certain that Liverpool's new owners would be Arabic rather than American. DIC, led by Liverpool supporter Sameer Al Ansari, would invest heavily in two key areas: firstly the new stadium that Liverpool need in order to compete with Arsenal and Manchester United for matchday revenue; and secondly the playing squad. The possible departure off the Anfield scene of the two Americans might be welcome news to Benitez, who has fallen foul of them through his insistent demands for transfer funds; but the arrival of DIC as owners would not necessarily be good news for Benitez because they are thought to be keen to recruit Jose Mourinho, who is known to be interested in managing the club. DIC were hours away from buying Liverpool last February, but lost out at the last minute to Hicks and Gillett when the club's chief executive, Rick Parry, switched his support from the Arab camp, who were perceived to be taking too long to act decisively, to the Americans. The US businessmen paid £174.1m for a 100 per cent shareholding, also agreeing to take on the club's then debt of £44.8m. But their purchase of Liverpool was funded solely by borrowed money. The pair's loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland grew to £350million as it was used to fund several high-profile summer transfers, as well as development work and architect's plans for the proposed new 60,000-seat stadium in Stanley Park - and to roll up the interest on the debt. Now the RBS loan is due for repayment next month, and The Observer understands that attempts to restructure it have so far failed, while the Americans have not yet injected new equity into the refinancing. RBS have asked Hicks and Gillett each to commit £20million of their own cash to the deal, but City sources believe that at least one of the two businessmen is not prepared to do so. Hicks and Gillett themselves were not commenting on the situation on Saturday night. Meanwhile, work on the 'New Anfield' stadium project has been suspended while the acquisition loan issue is resolved, with no chance of funding being put in place for the £400m stadium project until it is. A meeting in New York last week at which architects HKS and AFL presented competing stadium designs, was described by Parry merely as "another big step forward to finding the best possible solution. Everyone is reflecting on what they have heard and a clear decision will be taken soon." The Guardian reports that RBS could even become Liverpool's new owner. "The global credit crunch has made it harder for Hicks and Gillett to raise new revenues elsewhere and also affected the value of their other assets," explains the paper. "Should they fail in their efforts to repay the £350m acquisition debt on Liverpool when it comes due in just over six weeks, there would be the possibility of the next owner of the club becoming RBS." However, it is thought that the bank, Parry and Liverpool's honorary life-president David Moores, the former principal shareholder, are unlikely to allow the situation to develp in that way. Parry and Moores are "horrified that the Hicks-Gillett deal has not thus far brought long-term financial stability to the club. As a consequence, there are increasing tensions between the Americans and other board members as the refinancing deadline approaches." And Parry and Moores are thought to be open to a second takeover. That brings DIC back into the equation. Sources in the Middle East have confirmed that DIC remain as interested in buying Liverpool as they were last year. DIC last night refused to comment, but could solve the financial problems besetting Liverpool. A £500 million purchase price wold enable the two Americans to ride off into the sunset with a profit of £75millon each. Mark Hinton, Goal.com

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Rashid DIC stayed silent from the start and I think they respected how we operated from the start.... they did make a statement at the end though.

Agree I and most people I know were very enthusiastic about DIC - they seemed very professional and the fact that they didn't go on a massive PR offensive was encouraging - they didn't need to as they had all the right credentials (it is also the Liverpool way to be understated). On another note the yanks were just too PR savvy to the extent that you wonder are they con men (and judging by their results in their other sports you would have to say they are either con men or inept or both).

[havarantagain]

If DIC did get control of us ,say for 4-500Mill, then spent another 300 on the stadium plus up to 100 for players and off field promotions etc. Who could they sell to and hope to get get a reasonable return? I think they would be interested in the long term, more seven to ten than 3 to 5.

[Cardie]

Originally Posted by billybonzo So you think things like that dont, under any circumstances happen ? I wouldn't totally disregard it personally.

I know they happen, I also know that the document they denied existence of followed an eerily similar path to one they used for another of their investments.

[Stouffer]

However, it is thought that the bank, Parry and Liverpool's honorary life-president David Moores, the former principal shareholder, are unlikely to allow the situation to develp in that way. Parry and Moores are "horrified that the Hicks-Gillett deal has not thus far brought long-term financial stability to the club. As a consequence, there are increasing tensions between the Americans and other board members as the refinancing deadline approaches." And Parry and Moores are thought to be open to a second takeover. That brings DIC back into the equation. Sources in the Middle East have confirmed that DIC remain as interested in buying Liverpool as they were last year. DIC last night refused to comment, but could solve the financial problems besetting Liverpool. A £500 million purchase price wold enable the two Americans to ride off into the sunset with a profit of £75millon each. Mark Hinton, Goal.com

Bull-shit Mr Hahn man.

Parry and Moores couldn't do fuck all when they were in charge of the club.

Coulda woulda shoulda.

Sources my arse, where's my fucking pie?

[Moo]

Originally Posted by real red Honesty's a priority, it has to be, although I'm not sure how easy it is to judge the honesty of anybody - in advance - in a situation like this. Hicks said in October that the refinancing would be done in 30 days. Bad enough that is was a type of refinancing they told us they wouldn't do, but even worse given that it's taken three times as long and is still not done. The stadium's now been put back at least another year as a result. They're not as rich as they'd have us believe. Although they'll be a little richer should DIC take it off their hands. I also don't imagine they'd mess Rafa (or any future boss) about they way this lot did. If they know how much he can spend on transfers, they'll tell him. If they don't know because they need some other figures to come in, they'll tell him and give him a date. If they decide for any reason that they don't want that manager to stay on, they'll not allow that information to leak out, and they'll probably act sooner rather than later.

For all we know G&H could have done exactly the same when managing Rafa's expectation re: transfer funds. I do recall Rafa complaining about being asked to wait and he wasn't too happy, which is what kicked off this sorry mess.
A sorry mess that Rafa 'leaked' not G&H, they only responded to Rafa's comments.

I'm no fan of the current owners and do want them out, purely because of the stadium fiasco.
But some people have lost all sense of reason and logic and I think react accordingly.

We have no reason to think that things would be better under DIC, although I think I would feel slight relief if they took over.
But who's to say if they went back to the Parry Bowl we/I wouldn't be pissed off with them, if the transfer budget was still 'the usual', and if on pitch results continue to fluctuate then the managers position wouldn't continue to be questionned?? All these things are easily imagined.

The botom line is, I won't trust anyone who buys into us now. Not until they have a number of years proving me wrong.

Or not unless David Moores comes back with a savvy and rich business partner (I can dream).

[Rashid]

Originally Posted by Cardie I know they happen, I also know that the document they denied existence of followed an eerily similar path to one they used for another of their investments.

Which is a reasonable thing to do Cardie if you think football clubs operate in exactly the same way as hotel groups and financial firms especially in terms of the emotional attachment.

[Cardie]

Originally Posted by Rashid