DIC: takeover thread

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

I don't "Know" all this, but what makes you think there are 'additional' laws that apply to business and when anything is bought in business the ability to dispose of it anyway you want is somehow limited as you're sugesting? When you buy a car, is there any limitations on what or who you can sell it on to?

You can't just dispose a business in any way you want to, when you have bought the business in a "50/50 partnership". When you buy a car with half of your money and half of someone else's money, you can't just sell the car to anyone you like. You have to get some sort of agreement with your partner on who you can sell the car to - since your partner has also invested in the same car.

The Predicted Profits that Hicks can see in the future, the predicted Profits he's trying his hardest to hold onto. Why else do you imagine that Hicks is fighting so hard to hold onto the club?

I was talking about the situation in 11/12 months time - not in 5 years time. If Gillett has already stretched himself NOW, he will be nervous about the situation in a year's time. I don't have a clue why you are on about future profits when it is clear Gillett wants to sell NOW.

Justify it anyway you want but it's still "IF". "IF" can have a positive outcome as well.

Sure. Time will tell.

I'm not asking you to trust anyone, I'm simply questioning your logic for arriving at some of your assumptions/guesses. It's easy enough to make a positive guess at the "best possible outcome" - Try this - D.I.C. buy us and through shedfulls of money at us allowing us to get back to where we belong. I don't want to argue how likely that is with you but you have to admit it is a possible outcome of the "IF" argument.

So, you can arrive at a positive guess/assumption based on what Gillett and Hicks have promised/done so far? I'm truly amazed. Oh and just for the record, I won't trust DIC either until they prove me wrong.

Anyway, I'm bored of it all now. I'm off to look at some tits.

[Kennys_spell]

[quote=Carra_is_legend;1150678]

You can't just dispose a business in any way you want to, when you have bought the business in a "50/50 partnership"

.

Erm yes you can - or rather you can dispose of your percentage of the business - which is what we're talking about unless you're moving the goalposts.

When you buy a car with half of your money and half of someone else's money, you can't just sell the car to anyone you like. You have to get some sort of agreement with your partner on who you can sell the car to - since your partner has also invested in the same car.

EH???? I have no idea who you arrange your loans through but they don't put stipulations like that on the loan - they just make you responsible for paying them back the money you have lent on the terms agreed. They don't give a toss who you sell it to as long as the money is payed back!

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

Erm yes you can - or rather you can dispose of your percentage of the business - which is what we're talking about unless you're moving the goalposts.

How am I trying to move the goalposts? When Hicks and Gillett bought the club, they would have signed a partnership agreement saying one of them CANNOT sell without the other partner's permission. Imagine you and me going into a business venture in a 50/50 basis. If I want to sell my 50% to someone, wouldn't you be interested to know about the person I want to sell to? Wouldn't you want to know if the 'new partner' has the same vision and objectives as you do? If you think that the 'new partner' doesn't share your ideas for the business, would you agree to the sale? There are various business conditions to protect the interests of even minority share holders - so you can imagine what the conditions will be like for a 50% equal shareholder.

Why do you think DIC agreed to 49% knowing well they will have to obey Hicks' orders? Because Hicks is not going to share the business 50/50 with someone he is not sure about. Remember when Hicks broke the talks off with DIC? He said DIC wanted to run the club through a committee which Hicks didn't agree with. That is the key - in a 50/50 partnership, if someone wants to sell their 50%, the other partner HAS to agree to it. You can just enter into a business venture with a partner then sell it to someone and fuck off. It doesn't work like that. May be they had the 90 day condition to give enough time for the other partner and allow each other to sell if they wanted to. I don't know. I guess we will know soon enough.

EH???? I have no idea who you arrange your loans through but they don't put stipulations like that on the loan - they just make you responsible for paying them back the money you have lent on the terms agreed. They don't give a toss who you sell it to as long as the money is payed back!

Seriously mate, what are you on about? I wasn't talking about the loans at all. You said if someone wants to sell their car,they can sell it to anyone. I said that won't be the case if you share the price of the car with someone else. If both of you borrowed the money to buy that car, ofcourse, the bank won't give a toss about who you are selling your 50% of the car to, provided they get their interest and principal back. But your partner will give plenty of toss about who you want to sell the car to.

[Kennys_spell]

[quote=Carra_is_legend;1150955]

Seriously mate, what are you on about? I wasn't talking about the loans at all.

You're a wind up - you are aren't you?

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

You're a wind up - you are aren't you?

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.

[Kennys_spell]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

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.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

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.

You used the car example to illustrate someone selling their share of a business and not as an example for 'borrowing money'. Read your post again.

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.

I never suggested that Gillett will NEVER be able to sell to anyone. I said they would have signed a partnership agreement and said they MAY have included the 90-day clause to give each other the option of buying if any of them wants to sell. I never said anything about these having to do anything with the banks.

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.

That is what you believe. Not necessarily a fact.

[Kennys_spell]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

You used the car example to illustrate someone selling their share of a business and not as an example for 'borrowing money'. Read your post again.



I never suggested that Gillett will NEVER be able to sell to anyone. I said they would have signed a partnership agreement and said they MAY have included the 90-day clause to give each other the option of buying if any of them wants to sell. I never said anything about these having to do anything with the banks.



That is what you believe. Not necessarily a fact.

No really mate - You're wrong on so many levels. I disagree with you.

Lets end it there.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

No really mate - You're wrong on so many levels. I disagree with you.

Lets end it there.

I could say the same about you and anyone who have posted on this thread. You know why? No one has a fucking clue on what is going on.

[dirty_sanchez]

There's some unresolved sexual tension between you two.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by dirty_sanchez

There's some unresolved sexual tension between you two.

Probably between him and my avatar.

[Sangria]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

I could say the same about you and anyone who have posted on this thread. You know why? No one has a fucking clue on what is going on.

I would say that is not completely correct a few have an idea of what is going on.
No one knows the outcome that is a different story altogether.

[Kennys_spell]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

I could say the same about you and anyone who have posted on this thread. You know why? No one has a fucking clue on what is going on.

You could say it - it wouldn't necessarrily be true.

Bye.

[dirty_sanchez]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

Probably between him and my avatar.

She does have a hypnotic cleavage.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

You could say it - it wouldn't necessarrily be true.

Bye.

Just like what you said isn't necessarily true etc.

Ta ra la.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Sangria

I would say that is not completely correct a few have an idea of what is going on.
No one knows the outcome that is a different story altogether.

I suppose you are right mate. Expecially Coop who has passed on some interesting info.

[Sangria]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

I suppose you are right mate. Expecially Coop who has passed on some interesting info.

Yes indeed he never posts bollocks and it is a glimpse of some of what is going on.
Then end game no one knows. Probably not even the fat texan himself.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Sangria

Yes indeed he never posts bollocks and it is a glimpse of some of what is going on.
Then end game no one knows. Probably not even the fat texan himself.

Whatever the end is, I hope it ends soon one way or other. We can't afford to waste another season due to this mess.

[Scouse Lad]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

Probably between him and my avatar.

Who`s the bird in your avatar mate?