DIC: takeover thread

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

Damage limitation exercise - PR and Spin. Of course he's going to come out and try to put a brave face on it - he's not likely to say "Oh shit, I'm fucked now" when he's still actively trying to borrow further funds.

What was the highlighted bit for? Everyone knows he has first option for a limited time on Gillett's holdings.

I hope you are right about your 1st paragraph.

As for the 2nd point, as RR pointed out, we don't know for sure about the limited time clause. A few articles have mentioned that but it is not black and white.

[Kennys_spell]

Originally Posted by real red

Reality corner. There is no deadline.

Whether there's anything we can do about this situation or not, anything that would actually work, we'd be armed far better if we worked on whatever the true picture is than on one that's in the Disney version of the story which surely has to have a happy ending.

This story might not have a happy ending. Even if it keeps looking more and more like it will.

Strange that you KNOW there is no deadline but question anyone who suggests there is.

Really mate - I'm just killing time in work so I don't give a shit. It'll work itself out and we'll all still be slaves to the Glory that is Liverpool FC.

[Kennys_spell]

Originally Posted by Sinos

There is no court in the land that would say he has to sell to Hicks if he can profit from another buyer just because Hick's is his equal partner.

There has to be a way to dissolve the partnership because that would leave G&H's lawyers open to a claim of negligence.

There is clear protection laws and precedent.

Gillet can be every bit as stubborn as Hicks is being if he wants to and everything that these people are suggesting as reasons for Gillett selling are just as real for Hicks.

[Kennys_spell]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

I hope you are right about your 1st paragraph.

As for the 2nd point, as RR pointed out, we don't know for sure about the limited time clause. A few articles have mentioned that but it is not black and white.

You're absolutely correct in what you say but the logic you then apply to that is flawed.

For instance - why is Hicks running his arse off around town trying to get the Banks to led him the money?

Why is Hics NOW looking at Hedge funds as "a last resort" to get the funds together?

Seems to me like they're the actions of a man who has a deadline don't you agree?

[Sinos]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

There is clear protection laws and precedent.

Gillet can be every bit as stubborn as Hicks is being if he wants to and everything that these people are suggesting as reasons for Gillett selling are just as real for Hicks.

but if Hick's can't match or better the offer a court won't force Gillett to sell to Hicks.

[real red]

Originally Posted by Sinos

There is no court in the land that would say he has to sell to Hicks if he can profit from another buyer just because Hick's is his equal partner.

There has to be a way to dissolve the partnership because that would leave G&H's lawyers open to a claim of negligence.

I can't see Hicks being forced to accept DIC as his partners if he's matched their offer. And I can still see ways he could get away with offering less than DIC and still block GG.

To settle it, I expect the court would most likely call for some independent valuations and Hicks would have to either match that or allow GG to sell. At the same time the court would possibly order that DIC make the same offer to Hicks for his half.

[real red]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

Strange that you KNOW there is no deadline but question anyone who suggests there is.

Really mate - I'm just killing time in work so I don't give a shit. It'll work itself out and we'll all still be slaves to the Glory that is Liverpool FC.

Ok - I am pretty certain there is no time limit but haven't actually seen any written proof.

And the truest words written there at "it'll work itself out" because we'll all eventually accept whatever happens and hopefully stop looking at the cushioned seats next to the press box...

[real red]

Originally Posted by Kennys_spell

There is clear protection laws and precedent.

Gillet can be every bit as stubborn as Hicks is being if he wants to and everything that these people are suggesting as reasons for Gillett selling are just as real for Hicks.

I'm not disputing there's precedent - I've just not seen what the precedent is, the past cases that make that up, so I don't know what the judgements were. And if the precedent is close enough for this situation.

And yes, they can all be stubborn, and that's the biggest problem we're facing. If the banks don't force it to happen, we're all waiting for each of the three stubborn parties to budge in some way.

[Sinos]

Originally Posted by real red

Ok - I am pretty certain there is no time limit but haven't actually seen any written proof.

And the truest words written there at "it'll work itself out" because we'll all eventually accept whatever happens and hopefully stop looking at the cushioned seats next to the press box...

I would willing bet my house that NEITHER party would have agreed to an indefinite veto on the other's share. The only question's left are what type of clause it is that dissolves the partnership and when does Hicks right to exercise his status a preferred bidder end?

[hamstrung]

Sweet Jesus, this is boring.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by hamstrung

Sweet Jesus, this is boring.

Seconded.

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

I hope you are right about your 1st paragraph.

As for the 2nd point, as RR pointed out, we don't know for sure about the limited time clause. A few articles have mentioned that but it is not black and white.

The time limit was mentioned by GG in that Canadian radio brodcast.

If I remember rightly I am sure he said the time had past.

[JohnnyH]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

Seconded.

Turded

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by SCOUSE TAPAS

The time limit was mentioned by GG in that Canadian radio brodcast.

If I remember rightly I am sure he said the time had past.

Did he? Did he directly mention it? I'm not sure about that. I remember him mentioning that the Gillett family could not have been a better partner and that they gave Hicks enough time to match the offer and that ultimately Hicks couldn't cross the finish line. This was weeks ago and Gillett still hasn't sold his shares.

Gillett also said in the same interview that Hicks only "threatened" to use his veto.

Anyway, as hamstrung said, this is fucking boring now.

[The Acolyte]

Originally Posted by coop

According to the article Hicks is going to sell the naming rights for the Stadium for £300 million.

That would be one hell of a deal as Arsenal got £100 million for theres. How long is the naming rights for then til the next millenium.

Sorry to have a go Coop, but I can't see that happening.
Remember he owes 50% of the club. Not only would it have to be agreed by GG but he also gets 50% of that right?

[coop]

Quote:

</

Originally Posted by The Acolyte

Sorry to have a go Coop, but I can't see that happening.
Remember he owes 50% of the club. Not only would it have to be agreed by GG but he also gets 50% of that right?