DIC: takeover thread

[Alias75]

Originally Posted by Tom R

This so-called "credit crunch" won't really make any difference unfirtunately.

It's not like he's borrowed on a variable rate or anything. It's a fixed rate, over a fixed period. So providing the money is coming in to the club then the debt is being serviced.

Basically, as SOS an many others keep saying, and everyone continually ignores, the only way to help the club is to STOP SPENDING MONEY THERE.

Lack of cash coming in = payments on loan in jeopardy = bye bye Tom Hicks.

Thats not true you have to remember that Liverpool isnt the only one of Hicks' businesses that is funded this way. All of his businesses are funded with bank loans that need servicing at various times.

You also have to remember that the particular loan he took out to buy Liverpool is one that needs to be serviced in less than 18 months time, so while your right that he borrowed at a set rate and a fixed period that has to be done again in less than 18 months by which time the financial situation in the US could be much worse and then he'd have huge problems getting someone to loan him the money especially if his overall financial situation is weaker than it currently is.

I think if the credit crunch continues all of Hicks' businesses will be affected which obviously makes a sale of his share much more of a possibility. If he leaves it too long, he loses any potential bargaining power he may currently have.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by CaptainK

IMO that is something that has to be approved by the board - the shareholders can't bypass the board who are there to make these kinds of decisions. If Gillett decides he wants to oppose the plan so that the assets remain within the club and he can get more for his share, all he needs is Parry and Moores to back his votes and Hicks is outnumbered.

What makes you think GG will oppose that? If Hicks cannot keep up with the repayment, Gillett has no chance. Gillett will be the first to approve something like that.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Alias75

Thats not true you have to remember that Liverpool isnt the only one of Hicks' businesses that is funded this way. All of his businesses are funded with bank loans that need servicing at various times.

You also have to remember that the particular loan he took out to buy Liverpool is one that needs to be serviced in less than 18 months time, so while your right that he borrowed at a set rate and a fixed period that has to be done again in less than 18 months by which time the financial situation in the US could be much worse and then he'd have huge problems getting someone to loan him the money especially if his overall financial situation is weaker than it currently is.

I think if the credit crunch continues all of Hicks' businesses will be affected which obviously makes a sale of his share much more of a possibility. If he leaves it too long, he loses any potential bargaining power he may currently have.

Well, if they keep up with the payments for the 18 months, why would the bank refuse them money in 18 months? Banks will see us as a stable business and would only be happy to lend the money. They have to lend money to make money and would only be happy to lend money to stable businesses.

Tom is right - the only way to hit them is to hit them in their pockets.

[Tom R]

Originally Posted by Alias75

Thats not true you have to remember that Liverpool isnt the only one of Hicks' businesses that is funded this way. All of his businesses are funded with bank loans that need servicing at various times.

You also have to remember that the particular loan he took out to buy Liverpool is one that needs to be serviced in less than 18 months time, so while your right that he borrowed at a set rate and a fixed period that has to be done again in less than 18 months by which time the financial situation in the US could be much worse and then he'd have huge problems getting someone to loan him the money especially if his overall financial situation is weaker than it currently is.

I think if the credit crunch continues all of Hicks' businesses will be affected which obviously makes a sale of his share much more of a possibility. If he leaves it too long, he loses any potential bargaining power he may currently have.

All true. All I'm saying is that this bank crashing won't have any immediate impacty. None at all. When it comes to RE-financing, well that's a different matter altogether. But that's almost 2 years away. In the meantime, what the financial markets do won't make a flying shit bit of difference as long as people keep spending money at LFC.

[robslappa]

Originally Posted by Tom R

All true. All I'm saying is that this bank crashing won't have any immediate impacty. None at all. When it comes to RE-financing, well that's a different matter altogether. But that's almost 2 years away. In the meantime, what the financial markets do won't make a flying shit bit of difference as long as people keep spending money at LFC.

Impacty, you could put that in the Reina Penalty Kicky Wicky song.

[CaptainK]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

What makes you think GG will oppose that? If Hicks cannot keep up with the repayment, Gillett has no chance. Gillett will be the first to approve something like that.

The whole point being that Gillett is trying to sell and the Texan Twat is being obtuse. Gillett doesn't need to make the repayments - he's trying to offload his share and Texan Twat will realise that he can't afford to stand in his way. If Hicks tries to bring in another investor, Gillett can refuse and at that point, he may be forced to do as you suggest. As things stand, I can't see anyone being too keen to lend money to a new investor.

[Alias75]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

Well, if they keep up with the payments for the 18 months, why would the bank refuse them money in 18 months? Banks will see us as a stable business and would only be happy to lend the money. They have to lend money to make money and would only be happy to lend money to stable businesses.

Tom is right - the only way to hit them is to hit them in their pockets.

Because in 18 months time Hicks' personnel wealth will probably be significantly lower than it currently is, just if the dollar continues to plummet it affects his personnel wealth. All of his other businesses are also funded in the same way he funded buying us, so he has the same problems with everyone of those businesses when it comes to refinancing loans.

He could wait until the loans need refinancing and hope the financial climate improves but thats a very big gamble, if the US economy continues on the same path he can forget about any refinancing and he can forget about the levels of profit hes currently looking at for his share.

Theres certainly no guarantees that any bank would refinance these loans in 18 months time.

[Alias75]

Originally Posted by Tom R

All true. All I'm saying is that this bank crashing won't have any immediate impacty. None at all. When it comes to RE-financing, well that's a different matter altogether. But that's almost 2 years away. In the meantime, what the financial markets do won't make a flying shit bit of difference as long as people keep spending money at LFC.

But Liverpool FC isn't Hicks' only business and he funds them all in the same way i.e bank loans so all of his business are affected by the credit crunch. Theres also the plunging value of the dollar which is already having an effect on his wealth.

He can try and wait and hope the financial situation improves but thats a huge gamble to take when he has profit on the table now, the longer he waits the worse the US economy gets and the less and less negotiating power he has.

[real red]

Originally Posted by fivetimes

Ha anyone thought that he would just sell some of our better players if the money doesnt come in through the club?

I've been saying it for a while.

Originally Posted by Kaizer Sauze

I doubt even he is that stupid

Well at least not in the short term as we are about to endure the mother of all PR offences on behalf on Hicks

I don't know how long they've got until they actually have to pay the interest, if it's in a few instalments or if it just works out that to pay the loan off in 16 months' time they have to pay £350m + the interest. (Or for that matter if the £350m includes the interest, although I doubt it).

But when it comes due, assuming they're both still here then, Hicks and Gillett will either have to get the money from the club or find the money themselves. If they can't get it from the club nicely, out of profits, then they have to decide if they want to pay it themselves. And I doubt either of them has a spare £12m-£15m in cash lying around.

So then it's down to a choice between flogging their own assets (which will be worth less), having their own assets taken off them anyway (which will be worth even less) or flogging players to pay the interest.

That may be the point where they finally give in and sell the club, but they might actually be naive enough to think that selling Torres and getting Owen on a free (for example) would work!

Originally Posted by Alias75

But Liverpool FC isn't Hicks' only business and he funds them all in the same way i.e bank loans so all of his business are affected by the credit crunch. Theres also the plunging value of the dollar which is already having an effect on his wealth.

He can try and wait and hope the financial situation improves but thats a huge gamble to take when he has profit on the table now, the longer he waits the worse the US economy gets and the less and less negotiating power he has.

I don't fully understand if my next statement holds water or is as incontinent as an old lady on a roller coaster. If the dollar is going to drop in value, does that not make it worth hanging on longer to LFC? Forget the credit problems for a while, say they kept us for six months. Using very simplified figures, say they've just turned down £250m each, which is $500m (based on $2 to the quid). In six months the dollar has gone to $2.50 per quid (I said it was simplified). If the offer for £250m is still on the table and accepted, that is now equivalent to $625m. Obviously (?) we aren't going to see the dollar get to that kind of figure, but when you're talking hundreds of millions of dollars it does all mount up. Every 10 cent difference an extra $25m compared to now.

[taliesin08]

The way things look, its getting more squeaky bum time for the yanks and better for DIC. I suppose thats why we have this no comment stage at the moment.

I wonder when the 90 day clause kicked in?

[BRANDS]

im glad its gone a bit quiet behind the scenes, when theres something to be announced announce it - there was too many leaks and statements from too many parties

[CaptainK]

One other thing with regards to Hicks. Although he is richer than Gillett, the important thing is, how cash rich? The vast majority of his business empire is funded by borrowed money.

Additionally, doesn't Hicks sports group in the states own his 50% share of Kop Holdings?

Hicks recently tried to attract investors to this sports group that includes his American sports teams under a special rule in the States - rule 144 or something like that. Basically, he could only sell to banks and financiers, etc - no Joe Public allowed, because of the special rule - i.e. they don't have to go through all the hoops and stringent checks by their Securities Board to float and therefore too risky for Joe Public. Failed miserably.

No takers. None. Nada. Zilch. Whatever bleeding language you care to use.

He was also warned by JP Morgan that if he attempted to buy Gillet's half, it would put the rest of his businesses at "serious risk".

The bloke is in almost as much trouble as Gillett. He does have one advantage over Gillett, and that is, the stadium - from what I've read, his associates and possibly himself will stand to make money off the construction.

[taliesin08]

Here is a quote I found by our illustrious owner quite ironic considering the circumstances.

"If you take the approach that you want to scrape every last nickel off the table, that'll work one or two times, but after awhile, your reputation will precede you."
Tom Hicks.

[DJLJ]

Originally Posted by Tom R

This so-called "credit crunch" won't really make any difference unfirtunately.

It's not like he's borrowed on a variable rate or anything. It's a fixed rate, over a fixed period. So providing the money is coming in to the club then the debt is being serviced.

Basically, as SOS an many others keep saying, and everyone continually ignores, the only way to help the club is to STOP SPENDING MONEY THERE.

Lack of cash coming in = payments on loan in jeopardy = bye bye Tom Hicks.

Sorry Tom, but that is bollocks. There is a much bigger chance the credit crunch will force their hands in 1 1/2 years time than people not buying from the club shop.
The debt being serviced is a small part in this, the big part is the £350m needs to be re-financed in a little less than 18 months. As long as the credit crunch is hitting the US so hard, the USD will continue to decline, especially seeing as they have now hit recession as well. This means that their assets is continues to be less worth in UK£, meaning they will have to put more of their assets in to get the refinance.

[Trucker Paddy]

Originally Posted by taliesin08

Here is a quote I found by our illustrious owner quite ironic considering the circumstances.

"If you take the approach that you want to scrape every last nickel off the table, that'll work one or two times, but after awhile, your reputation will precede you."
Tom Hicks.

Take note moores and parry,idiots!

[Tom R]

Originally Posted by DJLJ

Sorry Tom, but that is bollocks. There is a much bigger chance the credit crunch will force their hands in 1 1/2 years time than people not buying from the club shop.
The debt being serviced is a small part in this, the big part is the £350m needs to be re-financed in a little less than 18 months. As long as the credit crunch is hitting the US so hard, the USD will continue to decline, especially seeing as they have now hit recession as well. This means that their assets is continues to be less worth in UK£, meaning they will have to put more of their assets in to get the refinance.

I know!
I think my point is being missed completely.

What I said was that this bank collapse in the states etc will have no immediate effect whatsover.

You've hit the nail on the head, though. In 18 months time WILL have his hand forced, as he might not get a credit line big enough. But that's in 18 month's time!!
We need to force the cunts hand NOW, not in 18 months time, on a wing and a prayer that the financial climate will come to the rescue!

MAKE AN IMPACT NOW.

Knowarramean?

[robslappa]

I'm just thinking out loud, but is there a chance he's hanging on to the club because of the credit crunch? If the dollar continues to fall, surely he'll be in a better position by continuing to own a company who will be valued in pounds.