The great investment opportunities that Liverpool provide, as DIC see it, are set out in a section entitled "The Opportunity". The document says: "Opportunities exist to boost returns by unlocking 'hidden' value. We believe there is potential for multiple arbitrage if real estate/leisure is developed on the current Anfield site. Such an investment would allow the Middle East region to leverage on a strong brand with an equally strong international fan base."
The document tells potential investors that over the next five years a return starting at 19.3 per cent could rise to 29 per cent in year five.
One of the most revealing insights is when the document talks of how the financing will be done. A whole page is devoted to it and shows that three banks – Bank of Ireland, RBS and Bank of America – have been approached, with Bank of America the favourite.
__________________ Blow me fuck face. Go to hell. I'm sick of you.
I doubt their intentions are much different Ian, it is just that their pockets are a lot bigger.
Hicks and Gillett have plenty of money but don't really want to use it, from what it seems anyway. There's no guarantee that DIC would throw loads of money at it.
__________________
"We view these athletes in different lights"
Hicks and Gillett have plenty of money but don't really want to use it, from what it seems anyway. There's no guarantee that DIC would throw loads of money at it.
They don't have money, they have assets. They are not going to liquidate assets which make money for one asset.
DIC has loads of liquid money... by 'loads' I mean billions of pounds in liquid funds.
I have done in the past few weeks, yes. And there are the odd forums like Est1892 where people are still clinging on to the G+H dream but the cast majority want them out with DIC in. I's say the most anti G+H are talklfc and TLW with YNWA 3rd. RAWK took a while but now most want these two out.
Interesting - EST is still full of a lot of Dunk's little soldiers though isn't it? Was it RAWK that was very much pro-Parry over the summer when the stuff about limited transfer funds was starting to kick off?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brownie
Serious question:
All of the people who have voted for DIC - how do you know that their intentions would be any different to Hicks and Gillett?
I think we're in danger of falling for anyone else, because of the situation.
I think there is an element of that. It's a bit like voting at a General Election in some ways - there is no known good choice (unless you've got full-on blind faith in one party), so you have to vote for what you think is the lesser of all the evils. Maybe one party sounds really promising, but by the time of the next election people are starting to have doubts, especially over the party or leader that was in power.
If both DIC and GILL-HICK had put offers in last year, at the same time, and you'd been given the casting vote to decide who gets it, you'd have been voting based on a number of different things. Some of it has evidence to back it up - past ventures, financial information etc. But a lot of it would be based on what they told you about themselves and their intentions.
The trouble is, both parties could promise they fully intended to back Rafa with loads of money, keep you in your job regardless of your past or future performance, not to change the club's name to the Liverpool Rodeos and so on, but most of that would only be verbally agreed.
Can we get worse than Gillett and Hicks? Yes, course we can. But is that likely? Not sure.
Did Gillett and Hicks plan to lie to us and rip us off? Or did they just not realise what they'd taken on? Five minutes' due diligence suggests the latter.
DIC were going to get the club for less money first of all. Moores would still have been a very rich man, but not quite as rich. The cost of paying back the outlay for the club and stadium would have been lower under DIC, because they'd almost certainly either get a better interest rate or would use their own money anyway. The Parrybowl wasn't loved by anyone, but we'd all resigned ourselves to it pretty much - and there's still no saying they wouldn't have revisited it themselves anyway.
All in all, I don't for one minute think DIC would have given us what Gillett and Hicks made us think they were giving us. But I think they'd have been better for us than Gillett and Hicks have turned out to be.
Another one year delay so far on the stadium since they came along means whoever's in charge of the team for the next few years will have to wait even longer to benefit from the increased stadium revenue, which was the only reason for a takeover in the first place.
I don't know now how good a DIC takeover would be. They'd have to pay more to buy us, unless the Americans want to take a loss or Moores and the other shareholders pay back what they got for their shares. But I really can't see them being worse than this pair.
If the owners had told us, from the off, that they would be investing in the team the way they did rather than the way they implied then I think most of our problems would be reduced.
Why bother rushing plans through without checking the cost of building?
Why promise to put their own cash into transfers then backtrack?
Why promise not to put debt on the club then backtrack?
They didn't even tell Rafa for ages how much he'd really have to spend. They let him think he was getting extra money, then left him in the lurch without a clue how much he could have. And without even a clue of when he might find out how much he's got.
I think we'd all prefer to find out the bad news when it happens, not have it sugar-coated and kept from us for weeks on end, only to find it was as we'd suspected. If they'd told Rafa how much he really had to spend after Athens, and if they'd said that from the off, we'd have a totally different environment at the club. Instead we've got an environment of mistrust throughout.
I think DIC would want to avoid that. What would be the point?
__________________ "I won't come on tv and speak or write about anything and say words only half the people listening understand. In our language there's a similarity, words that are spelt differently but mean the same thing. Words that mean the same thing and the big men use these words, knowing full well that maybe only 10% of the people listening will understand. Well we don't. We speak the language that everybody understands. Instead of me saying somebody was avaricious, I'd say he was bloody greedy."
DIC are shithouses; why didn’t they stick around and fight Hicks & Gillett when they (DIC) were still actually in the running to buy the Club instead of pissing off? Hurt pride? They buckled at the thought of Hicks & Gillett offering a measly additional £17.5million (£500 per share)? Yet we’re now expected to believe that they are about to gallop to the rescue and allegedly fork out an additional £75 million each to Hicks and Gillett on top of the purchase price, and pay more for the stadium than they originally planned because they can’t go back to the original Parry bowl, can they? Utter nonsense.
They left as they were not getting the information they asked for from Moores. In the end the reason for that was because Moores was having meetings with Hicks and Gillett.
Would the stadium cost so much if DIC were bankrolling it?
With Steel being so expensive, would the fact that it's a main export of Dubai have any bearing on the overall cost?
I don't know whether they export Steel from Dubai but some of the most magnificent buildings in the world are currently being built or have been built there. The Sheikh owns several construction companies.
I don't know whether they export Steel from Dubai but some of the most magnificent buildings in the world are currently being built or have been built there. The Sheikh owns several construction companies.
Any vacanies for a Senior Contracts Surveyor Rashid? Put in a word for me.
__________________ Blow me fuck face. Go to hell. I'm sick of you.
All of the people who have voted for DIC - how do you know that their intentions would be any different to Hicks and Gillett?
I think we're in danger of falling for anyone else, because of the situation.
I voted for them and I believe that their intentions were probably very similar to G and H's. The difference for me is I believe they would have been far more professional and effective in the process of turning Liverpool into a very successful business like United are and Arsenal have become. They would give us a substantial budget but it wouldn't be a la Abramovich and again I am happy with that. I like the fact they have a track record of success in pretty much whatever they turn their hands to. I also like the fact that they would link Liverpool with Dubai in terms of increasing their already great prestige - this would mean they would be extremely determined to be the best and it would also mean that they would respect our traditions to avoid the fans turning on them and bringing bad publicity on them IMO.
Finally the big advantage they had was summed up in one of this following the collapse of their bid when they realised they were being messed around:
You must be mad, says DICFeb 2 2007
by Chris Bascombe, Liverpool Echo
DUBAI International Capital today launched a scathing attack on Liverpool's conduct, saying chairman David Moores had made a bewildering and shocking decision.
The fallout of the collapse of the deal intensified, with Dubai sources contacting the ECHO to put their side of the story in the days leading up to their withdrawal.
Anfield chief executive Rick Parry explained how Liverpool felt it was their duty to consider a rival offer from George Gillett jnr, and ultimately felt bullied into making a swift decision.
But a DIC spokesman has retaliated by suggesting chairman David Moores panicked at the 11th hour with a deal about to be sealed.
The spokesman said: "If the fans want to know what's happened, David Moores suffered what I can only describe as a mental aberration, just when the agreement was about to be reached.
"The fans are bemused, and we at DIC are just as bemused by the past few days.
"Liverpool Football Club has been looking for years and years for an investor, going through numerous suitors. They came to the conclusion DIC were the best people. We've been working closely with advisors for the last six to eight weeks, and spent a lot of time preparing a deal.
"We are genuine supporters who not only wanted to invest in the club, but to do so by keeping Mr Moores and Rick Parry in place. The announcement was going to be made this Monday.
"Then, 10 days ago, we heard from the press George Gillett had made another bid. No-one from Liverpool told us this, and when we asked what was happening they said they didn't know why a bid was made other than to muddy the waters.
"Then we read a formal statement from Liverpool announcing Gillett's bid last Friday. Again, DIC were informed by a journalist.
"This lack of communication made our guys tense.
"On Tuesday, we expected the board meeting to accept our proposals. Instead, we found out the board was discussing George Gillett's offer, once again through the press.
"Even on Tuesday night we could get no answers from Mr Moores and Mr Parry, even though we had a representative at the West Ham match.
"The people back in Dubai thought they weren't being told what's going on.
“There was no ultimatum given, but we did make it clear we needed to know quickly if the press conference was going ahead on Monday because DIC officials needed to know if they should book their flights.
"Once word got back to Dubai on Tuesday there were no answers from Liverpool, the word from on high was this is bad for our reputation and it all stops right now.
"We can't understand what had changed since December 4 when after a long search, Liverpool announced we were the best people."
DIC also raised questions about the merits of Gillett's proposals.
"We believe there will be more debt at a higher rate of interest. We can't understand why Liverpool would take such a risk."
Oh and another bit from the time that made me doubt H and G's motives was in this bit from the Echo:
A source close to Miskelly told the ECHO: “John has put a real offer on the table. He is a staunch fan with a hugely successful background who wants to be taken seriously as someone who can take the club forward.
“He has stayed in the background so far, and as fan was happy with the DIC bid. What’s confusing to him now is why anyone would pay £5,000 a share for Liverpool when the next offer is £4,000 a share?
“Surely it would make more sense to make a lower bid and invest the rest in the club and the team? Those who’ve seen the books know this is an overvaluation of the club, which is why we’d question the motives and like to be considered as a viable alternative.”
On possible alternatives to Gillett, Parry said: “We have not been left high and dry but the focus is on George Gillett. There are other expressions of interest but we hope to conclude a deal going forward with George Gillett.”
Hicks and Gillett weren't arsed in the slightest about overpaying as they knew that the fans would be paying it back rather than them! As pretty much confirmed by Hicks himself: "When I was in the leverage buy-out business we bought Weetabix and we leveraged it up to make our return. You could say that anyone who was eating Weetabix was paying for our purchase of Weetabix. It was just business. It is the same for Liverpool" - Tom Hicks
Just read this in The Observer, don't know if someone has already posted it?
Liverpool FC could change hands for the second time in a year as their American owners encounter difficulties in refinancing £350million of debt incurred in taking over and running the club.
Beset by the steeply rising costs of a new stadium and manager Rafa Benitez's demands for new players, Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr have been attempting to transfer the debt, for which they are personally liable, on to the club itself. City sources believe this is an extremely difficult task to complete before the loan's due date at the end of February.
It is possible that the Americans will meet the deadline, but if not an Arab investment group, Dubai International Capital, is understood to be close to lodging an offer to buy out the American pair, probably for about £500m. Takeover discussions are thought to be due before the end of this month.
If successful, DIC, led by Liverpool supporter Sameer Al Ansari, would invest heavily in two areas: the new stadium that Liverpool need if they are to compete with Arsenal and Manchester United for matchday revenue, and an improved playing squad. Were they also to acquire a new management team Jose Mourinho, who is known to be interested in managing Liverpool, would be a prime candidate.
DIC were extremely close to buying Liverpool last February, only to lose out to Hicks and Gillett when the club's chief executive, Rick Parry, switched his support from the Arab camp to the American. The latter paid £174.1m for a 100 per cent shareholding, also agreeing to take on the club's then debt of £44.8m.
The purchase, however, was funded solely with borrowed money, Hicks and Gillett's loan from the Royal Bank of Scotland swelling to £350m as it was used to fund several high-profile summer transfers, development work and architect's plans for a 60,000-seat stadium in Stanley Park, and to roll up the interest on the debt.
The RBS loan is due for repayment next month. The Observer understands that attempts to restructure it have so far failed and the Americans have yet to inject new equity into the refinancing.
While RBS have asked Hicks and Gillett to each commit £20m of their own cash to the deal, City sources believe that at least one of the pair is not prepared to do so. Hicks and Gillett declined to comment last night.
Meanwhile, work on 'New Anfield' has been held up by the impasse over the acquisition loan, with no chance of funding being put in place for the £400m stadium project until the issue is resolved. 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 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. 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.
The bank, however, are extremelyunlikely to allow the situation to develop that way. Nor are Parry and club honorary life-president David Moores, the former principal shareholder. 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. Parry and Moores are understood to be open to a second takeover.
Sources in the Middle East have confirmed that DIC remain as keenly interested in buying Liverpool as they were one year ago. DIC last night refused to comment on the matter, but they appear best placed to resolve the financial problems affecting the club's competitiveness in the Premier League. A mooted valuation of £1billion has been ridiculed, but an enterprise value of around half that figure might prove acceptable, allowing the Americans to exit with a profit of £75m each.
