Hicks moves for complete control of Liverpool

[Jorge Borge]

Sounds like self-assuring posturing, a message to DIC saying he won't be pushed around. He does hold the cards currently but that could change (please change, please change) and he knows it. Swaggering cowboy talking twat of a man.

[aws]

Hicks is a master of the half-lie. Something which isn't true but with a lot of twisting of the words arguably might be a bit true.

My guess is that Gillett has to offer to sell his shares to hicks and then has to wait for hicks to decide before selling to DIC . So if we are in the waiting period it is true that gillet can't sell without hicks' approval (for now).

[Section_31]

Originally Posted by coop Hicks is a snake.

That's ace that!

Hicks is just reacting the way all wealthy men do when they don't have control over their own destiny, digging in and lashing out.

Dirk called him a fascist, and someone once described fascism as 'the violent reaction of the ruling class when their position of power is under threat'.

Hicks had been isolated and outmaneuvered, he's rattling his sabre more in hope than expectation IMO, fingers, toes and DIC crossed for a speedy conclusion to this footballing disaster.

[Rashid]

Lie after Lie, he has no shame either.

[hamstrung]

Originally Posted by aws Hicks is a master of the half-lie. Something which isn't true but with a lot of twisting of the words arguably might be a bit true. My guess is that Gillett has to offer to sell his shares to hicks and then has to wait for hicks to decide before selling to DIC . So if we are in the waiting period it is true that gillet can't sell without hicks' approval (for now).

Makes sense.

[spider-neil]

can anyone answer if he can do what he says he can do (block the move).
I have shares so I know for a fact when a shareholder wants to sell they have to offer existing shareholders first option but I don't know if existing shareholders can block a move once the shares have been offered and not taken or if someone (other than an existing sharehold) offers more money for the shares.

facts please not opinion I'm curious.

[RedinSweden]

Originally Posted by aws Hicks is a master of the half-lie. Something which isn't true but with a lot of twisting of the words arguably might be a bit true. My guess is that Gillett has to offer to sell his shares to hicks and then has to wait for hicks to decide before selling to DIC . So if we are in the waiting period it is true that gillet can't sell without hicks' approval (for now).

This is how I see it too. If you read the statements he issues carefully, he does this loads. He never deals in definites. He doesn't say "DIC are not looking at the books", he says "I have not invited DIC to look at the books", which is true if it is GG that has invited them to. Statements are always worded carefully, far more carefully than things said in interviews. If they want there to be no doubt they will make sure there is no doubt. If you can read things in different ways, it is often this half-lie business.

[stig]

Originally Posted by Dirk Tom Hicks is the Frankenstein's Monster creation of Friedrich Nietzsche and Niccolo Machiavelli: the ultimate horrible, scheming fantasist.

Harsh some of his quotes are quality.

[JohnnyH]

Surely, if all the websites got together, and all the members of all the websites agreed a place to meet. And then all the members of all the websites kicked Hicks to death, there's no way the law could do us all?

[aws]

Originally Posted by spider-neil can anyone answer if he can do what he says he can do (block the move). I have shares so I know for a fact when a shareholder wants to sell they have to offer existing shareholders first option but I don't know if existing shareholders can block a move once the shares have been offered and not taken or if someone (other than an existing sharehold) offers more money for the shares. facts please not opinion I'm curious.

depends entirely on what their shareholder agreement says

Very unlikely that he has a complete veto

[ratcatcher]

Originally Posted by satmann What I was trying to say was he has not got enough money to underwrite the loan. Thats why i was saying he couldl pay Gillet a small premuim of around 20-40 million and take on all the loan. A fact is if he had enough money. They would never have downgraded the stadium. He will never be sole owner of Liverpool,

He has plenty of assests to underwrite the loan as far as Im aware.

[MLB]

He really is a reprehensible twat.

[zigackly]

The man is a pathological liar. Start by disbelieving most of what he says and you won't go far wrong.

[Kenny]

Does anyone know if Hicks matches DIC offer for Gilletts shares, can DIC up the offer again until he cant match it. Or does he just have to match the first offer to get them. Can DIC gazump him every time basically?

[bigredruss]

got to be a front, no way can he afford to buy the other half or they wouldn't have struggled to get the loan in the first place

[ratcatcher]

Originally Posted by Scouse Lad Does anyone know if Hicks matches DIC offer for Gilletts shares, can DIC up the offer again until he cant match it. Or does he just have to match the first offer to get them. Can DIC gazump him every time basically?

Taking things at face value, Hicks has first option to buy Gillet's shares. These are valued at around £150m. Providing Hicks can meet the asking price, they are his. DIC cant bid if the claim that the two must give the other first option is correct.

So no, DIC cannot gazump him. Besides they would be a bit daft to pay over the odds and the suggestion is they'll already pay nearly twice what they said was their max bid 12 months ago.