DIC: takeover thread

[RedinSweden]

I see your Scorpions and raise you "Whitesnake"

I dont know where Im going
But, I sure know where Ive been
Hanging on the promises
In songs of yesterday
An Ive made up my mind,
I aint wasting no more time
But, here I go again
Here I go again

Tho I keep searching for an answer,
I never seem to find what Im looking for
Oh lord, I pray
You give me strength to carry on,
cos I know what it means
To walk along the lonely street of dreams

An here I go again on my own
Goin down the only road Ive ever known,
Like a hobo* I was born to walk alone
An Ive made up my mind
I aint wasting no more time

Im just another heart in need of rescue,
Waiting on loves sweet charity
An Im gonna hold on
For the rest of my days,
cos I know what it means
To walk along the lonely street of dreams

An here I go again on my own
Goin down the only road Ive ever known,
Like a hobo* I was born to walk alone
An Ive made up my mind
I aint wasting no more time

But, here I go again,
Here I go again,
Here I go again,
Here I go...

An Ive made up my mind,
I aint wasting no more time

An here I go again on my own
Goin down the only road Ive ever known,
Like a hobo I was born to walk alone
cos I know what it means
To walk along the lonely street of dreams

An here I go again on my own
Goin down the only road Ive ever known,
Like a hobo I was born to walk alone
An Ive made up my mind
I aint wasting no more time...

But, here I go again,
Here I go again,
Here I go again,
Here I go,
Here I go again...

[navbasi]

Originally Posted by hamstrung

So do I, sadly.

Another thing to add to the "memory" thread.

Can either of you do the moves as well?

[hamstrung]

Originally Posted by RedinSweden

I see your Scorpions and raise you "Whitesnake"
.

The only place left to go is Twisted Sister

Oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

we've Got The Right To Choose And
there Ain't No Way We'll Lose It
this Is Our Life, This Is Our Song
we'll Fight The Powers That Be Just
don't Pick Our Destiny 'cause
you Don't Know Us, You Don't Belong

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

oh You're So Condescending
your Gall Is Never Ending
we Don't Want Nothin', Not A Thing From You
your Life Is Trite And Jaded
boring And Confiscated
if That's Your Best, Your Best Won't Do

oh.....................
oh.....................
we're Right/yeah
we're Free/yeah
we'll Fight/yeah
you'll See/yeah

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

oh We're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh We're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
no Way!

oh.....................
oh.....................
we're Right/yeah
we're Free/yeah
we'll Fight/yeah
you'll See/yeah

we're Not Gonna Take It
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

we're Not Gonna Take It, No!
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

just You Try And Make Us
we're Not Gonna Take It
come On
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
you're All Worthless And Weak
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore
now Drop And Give Me Twenty
we're Not Gonna Take It
oh Crinch Pin
no, We Ain't Gonna Take It
oh You And Your Uniform
we're Not Gonna Take It Anymore

Originally Posted by navbasi

Can either of you do the moves as well?

That would just be sad.

[Neil G]

I wish I was in Greenall Whitley land
Where beer is cool
And hearts are warm
The friends I left behind
Perhaps they're missing me, like I'm missing them
The jokes, the warmth, the fun, the games we used to play
But most of all, Greenall Whitley most of all, I'm missing you
Some day I'm going back to the taste I know so well

I wish I was in Greenall Whitley land...

[coop]

When the outside temperature rises
And the meaning is oh so clear
One thousand and one yellow daffodils
Begin to dance in front of you - oh dear
Are they trying to tell you something?
You're missing that one final screw
You're simply not in the pink my dear
To be honest you haven't got a clue
I'm going slightly mad
I'm going slightly mad
It finally happened - happened
It finally happened - ooh oh
It finally happened - I'm slightly mad
Oh dear!
I'm one card short of a full deck
I'm not quite the shilling
One wave short of a shipwreck
I'm not at my usual top billing
I'm coming down with a fever
I'm really out to sea
This kettle is boiling over
I think I'm a banana tree
Oh dear, I'm going slightly mad
I'm going slightly mad
It finally happened, happened
It finally happened uh huh
It finally happened I'm slightly mad - oh dear!
I'm knitting with only one needle
Unravelling fast its true
I'm driving only three wheels these days
But my dear how about you?
I'm going slightly mad
I'm going slightly mad
It finally happened
It finally happened oh yes
It finally happened
I'm slightly mad!
Just very slightly mad!
And there you have it
DIC still haven't bought us

[navbasi]

I see ALL of those and raise you WHAM!

Chorus:
WHAM! BAM!
I AM! A MAN!
JOB OR NO JOB,
YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT I'M NOT.
DO! YOU!
ENJOY WHAT YOU DO?
IF NOT, JUST STOP!
DON'T STAY THERE AND ROT!

You got soul....
You got soul....
I said get, get, get on down,
Said get, get, get, on down.
I said get, get, get on down,
Said get, get, get, on down.
Hey everybody take a look at me,
I've got street credibility,
I may not have a job,
But I have a good time,
With the boys that I meet "down on the line"
I said, I - DON'T - NEED - YOU
So you don't approve,
Well who asked you to?
HEY!
HEY - JERK - YOU - WORK
This boy's got better things to do
Hell,
I ain't never gonna work, get down in the dirt,
I choose, to cruise.
Gonna live my life, sharp as a knife,
I've found my groove and I just can't lose.
A.1. style from head to toe,
Cool cat flash gonna let you know,
I'm a soul boy - I'm a dole boy,
Take pleasure in leisure, I believe in joy!

Chorus

Party nights, and neon lights,
We hit the floors, we hit the heights.
Dancing shoes, and pretty girls.
Boys in leather kiss girls in pearls!
Hot-damn! Everybody, let's play!
So they promised you a good job - NO WAY!

One, two, three, rap!
C'mon everybody, DON'T NEED THIS CRAP!

Chorus

IF YOU'RE A PUB MAN
OR A CLUB MAN
MAYBE A JET BLACK GUY WITH A HIP HI-FI
A WHITE COOL CAT WITH A TRILBY HAT
MAYBE LEATHER AND STUDS IS WHERE YOU'RE AT
MAKE THE MOST OF EVERY DAY
DON'T LET HARD TIMES STAND IN YOUR WAY
GIVE A WHAM GIVE A BAM BUT DON'T GIVE A DAMN
COS THE BENEFIT GANG ARE GONNA PAY!

Now reach up high and touch your soul,
The boys from Wham! will help you reach that goal.
It's gonna break your mama's heart, (so sad)
It's gonna break your daddy's heart, (too bad)
But you'll throw the dice and take my advice,
Because I know that you're smart.
Can you dig this thing? - YEAH!
Are you gonna get down? - YEAH!
Say Wham! - WHAM!
Say Bam! - BAM!

Chorus x 3

Do you want to work? - NO
Are you gonna have fun? - YEAH
Do you want to be a jerk? - NO
Are you gonna stay young? - YEAH
Everybody say Wham! - WHAM!
Say Bam! - BAM!
Everybody say Wham! - WHAM!
Say Wham, Bam! - WHAM! BAM!

Can you dig this thing?
Are you gonna get down?
Said one, two, three, rap, c'mon everybody,
DON'T NEED THIS CRAP!

ENJOY WHAT YOU DO? x 8
Everybody say Wham! - WHAM!
Say Bam! - BAM!
Everybody say Wham! - WHAM!
Say Wham, Bam! - WHAM! BAM!
ENJOY WHAT YOU DO? x 12

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

And I raise you:

I want my

I want my DIC


Now look at them yo-yos thats the way you do it
You play the guitar on the mtv
That aint workin thats the way you do it
Money for nothin and chicks for free
Now that aint workin thats the way you do it
Lemme tell ya them guys aint dumb
Maybe get a blister on your little finger
Maybe get a blister on your thumb

We gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchen deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour tvs

See the little faggot with the earring and the makeup
Yeah buddy thats his own hair
That little faggot got his own jet airplane
That little faggot hes a millionaire

We gotta install microwave ovesns
Custom kitchens deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour tvs

I shoulda learned to play the guitar
I shoulda learned to play them drums
Look at that mama, she got it stickin in the camera
Man we could have some fun
And hes up there, whats that? hawaiian noises?
Bangin on the bongoes like a chimpanzee
That aint workin thats the way you do it
Get your money for nothin get your chicks for free

We gotta install microwave ovens
Custom kitchen deliveries
We gotta move these refrigerators
We gotta move these colour tvs, lord

Now that aint workin thats the way you do it
You play the guitar on the mtv
That aint workin thats the way you do it
Money for nothin and your chicks for free
Money for nothin and chicks for free

[isr]

Originally Posted by ratcatcher

Er no actually. Its based on shareholding. DIC (if they owned 50% of the shares) would still only account for 50% of the shares. They wouldnt have 3 votes to 1 to be able to force anything through. Their 3 votes would still only account for 50% of the shares and their voting rights.

David Moores did this numerous times as chairman. He only had one vote compared to all the other director \ shareholders on the board. But, he himself could force through any change as he was majority shareholder.

Ok, I'll be very very simplistic here.

1. Shareholders own the company.
2. Shareholders decide who sits on the board of directors.
3. The directors run the company. Its the balance of votes on the board which decides how the club is run.
4. If the directors don't please the shareholders, the shareholders replace them with different directors. Then, its the balance of votes amongst shareholders which decide who gets to sit on the board.

With a 50-50 shareholding split between DIC and Hicks, then Hicks on his own cannot replace Moores or Parry. And DIC on their own cannot further pack the board with their supporters. So, composition of the board remains unchanged.

As long as the assumption that the non-shareholder directors (ie: Parry and Moores) are in DIC's camp, then DIC will effectively have a voting majority on the board - who make the decisions. Then, cue my previous post.

This really depends on what the terms of Parry and Moore's appointments are. Do either need to be re-approved by a shareholders majority annually, or is it either on a 2 year or longer term.

(if they need to be re-appointed, and Hicks obviously refuses, then you DO have a voting deadlock on the board itself. I thought that Moores was exempt from this, however - doesn't he have a life term?)

All DIC need is a voting majority on the board, for as long as Hick's current (short term) refi. Hicks needs a solution before those loans expire.

I have no knowledge of the specifics of how our directors are appointed - but I'm sure this is publically available information - so the more enterprising of our forumites should be able to dig it out.

Originally Posted by real red

4 v 2 surely? Current board being Hicks, Hicks Jr, Georgie Boy, Foster, Parry, Moores. I assume DIC will get the two Gillett places.

You're probably right. I don't know the specifics. As long as the assumption that the non-shareholder directors (ie: Parry and Moores) are in DIC's camp, then the rest should still hold true.

Taking the long term view, I would be very surprised if DIC would want Hicks to walk out of this standing. Even if it means that they would be more profligate in transfers in the short term (*), to depress profits and thereby deny Hicks his interest payments.

As long as DIC eventually gain 100% of Liverpool, and Hicks gets his arse handed to him on a platter, then any short term losses incurred by DIC would be more than made up by:
a) reduced amount needed to buy out Hicks 12 to 18 months from now
b) lesser chance of DIC being held to ransom by opportunistic investors in the future

Basically, Hicks must be gambling that DIC have ambitious plans for the club which they want to put into action ASAP, so they are deperate for 100% ASAP, even at an inflated price.

Potentially a losing gamble for Hicks...

[navbasi]

Originally Posted by isr

Ok, I'll be very very simplistic here.

1. Shareholders own the company.
2. Shareholders decide who sits on the board of directors.
3. The directors run the company. Its the balance of votes on the board which decides how the club is run.
4. If the directors don't please the shareholders, the shareholders replace them with different directors. Then, its the balance of votes amongst shareholders which decide who gets to sit on the board.

With a 50-50 shareholding split between DIC and Hicks, then Hicks on his own cannot replace Moores or Parry. And DIC on their own cannot further pack the board with their supporters. So, composition of the board remains unchanged.

As long as the assumption that the non-shareholder directors (ie: Parry and Moores) are in DIC's camp, then DIC will effectively have a voting majority on the board - who make the decisions. Then, cue my previous post.

This really depends on what the terms of Parry and Moore's appointments are. Do either need to be re-approved by a shareholders majority annually, or is it either on a 2 year or longer term.

(if they need to be re-appointed, and Hicks obviously refuses, then you DO have a voting deadlock on the board itself. I thought that Moores was exempt from this, however - doesn't he have a life term?)

All DIC need is a voting majority on the board, for as long as Hick's current (short term) refi. Hicks needs a solution before those loans expire.

I have no knowledge of the specifics of how our directors are appointed - but I'm sure this is publically available information - so the more enterprising of our forumites should be able to dig it out.



You're probably right. I don't know the specifics. As long as the assumption that the non-shareholder directors (ie: Parry and Moores) are in DIC's camp, then the rest should still hold true.

Taking the long term view, I would be very surprised if DIC would want Hicks to walk out of this standing. Even if it means that they would be more profligate in transfers in the short term (*), to depress profits and thereby deny Hicks his interest payments.

As long as DIC eventually gain 100% of Liverpool, and Hicks gets his arse handed to him on a platter, then any short term losses incurred by DIC would be more than made up by:
a) reduced amount needed to buy out Hicks 12 to 18 months from now
b) lesser chance of DIC being held to ransom by opportunistic investors in the future

Basically, Hicks must be gambling that DIC have ambitious plans for the club which they want to put into action ASAP, so they are deperate for 100% ASAP, even at an inflated price.

Potentially a losing gamble for Hicks...

Thank fuck you kept it simple...

[Domasall]

Originally Posted by isr

Ok, I'll be very very simplistic here.

1. Shareholders own the company.
2. Shareholders decide who sits on the board of directors.
3. The directors run the company. Its the balance of votes on the board which decides how the club is run.
4. If the directors don't please the shareholders, the shareholders replace them with different directors. Then, its the balance of votes amongst shareholders which decide who gets to sit on the board.

With a 50-50 shareholding split between DIC and Hicks, then Hicks on his own cannot replace Moores or Parry. And DIC on their own cannot further pack the board with their supporters. So, composition of the board remains unchanged.

As long as the assumption that the non-shareholder directors (ie: Parry and Moores) are in DIC's camp, then DIC will effectively have a voting majority on the board - who make the decisions. Then, cue my previous post.

This really depends on what the terms of Parry and Moore's appointments are. Do either need to be re-approved by a shareholders majority annually, or is it either on a 2 year or longer term.

(if they need to be re-appointed, and Hicks obviously refuses, then you DO have a voting deadlock on the board itself. I thought that Moores was exempt from this, however - doesn't he have a life term?)

All DIC need is a voting majority on the board, for as long as Hick's current (short term) refi. Hicks needs a solution before those loans expire.

I have no knowledge of the specifics of how our directors are appointed - but I'm sure this is publically available information - so the more enterprising of our forumites should be able to dig it out.



You're probably right. I don't know the specifics. As long as the assumption that the non-shareholder directors (ie: Parry and Moores) are in DIC's camp, then the rest should still hold true.

Taking the long term view, I would be very surprised if DIC would want Hicks to walk out of this standing. Even if it means that they would be more profligate in transfers in the short term (*), to depress profits and thereby deny Hicks his interest payments.

As long as DIC eventually gain 100% of Liverpool, and Hicks gets his arse handed to him on a platter, then any short term losses incurred by DIC would be more than made up by:
a) reduced amount needed to buy out Hicks 12 to 18 months from now
b) lesser chance of DIC being held to ransom by opportunistic investors in the future

Basically, Hicks must be gambling that DIC have ambitious plans for the club which they want to put into action ASAP, so they are deperate for 100% ASAP, even at an inflated price.

Potentially a losing gamble for Hicks...

Only read the last page of this tiresome thread but the way I undestand it is if the Scorpions are the directors and vote againt Whitesnake who are the shareholders then our new ground will be called Gorky Park?

[ratcatcher]

Originally Posted by isr

Ok, I'll be very very simplistic here.

1. Shareholders own the company.
2. Shareholders decide who sits on the board of directors.
3. The directors run the company. Its the balance of votes on the board which decides how the club is run.
4. If the directors don't please the shareholders, the shareholders replace them with different directors. Then, its the balance of votes amongst shareholders which decide who gets to sit on the board.

With a 50-50 shareholding split between DIC and Hicks, then Hicks on his own cannot replace Moores or Parry. And DIC on their own cannot further pack the board with their supporters. So, composition of the board remains unchanged.

As long as the assumption that the non-shareholder directors (ie: Parry and Moores) are in DIC's camp, then DIC will effectively have a voting majority on the board - who make the decisions. Then, cue my previous post.

This really depends on what the terms of Parry and Moore's appointments are. Do either need to be re-approved by a shareholders majority annually, or is it either on a 2 year or longer term.

(if they need to be re-appointed, and Hicks obviously refuses, then you DO have a voting deadlock on the board itself. I thought that Moores was exempt from this, however - doesn't he have a life term?)

All DIC need is a voting majority on the board, for as long as Hick's current (short term) refi. Hicks needs a solution before those loans expire.

I have no knowledge of the specifics of how our directors are appointed - but I'm sure this is publically available information - so the more enterprising of our forumites should be able to dig it out.



You're probably right. I don't know the specifics. As long as the assumption that the non-shareholder directors (ie: Parry and Moores) are in DIC's camp, then the rest should still hold true.

Taking the long term view, I would be very surprised if DIC would want Hicks to walk out of this standing. Even if it means that they would be more profligate in transfers in the short term (*), to depress profits and thereby deny Hicks his interest payments.

As long as DIC eventually gain 100% of Liverpool, and Hicks gets his arse handed to him on a platter, then any short term losses incurred by DIC would be more than made up by:
a) reduced amount needed to buy out Hicks 12 to 18 months from now
b) lesser chance of DIC being held to ransom by opportunistic investors in the future

Basically, Hicks must be gambling that DIC have ambitious plans for the club which they want to put into action ASAP, so they are deperate for 100% ASAP, even at an inflated price.

Potentially a losing gamble for Hicks...

You're making a number of assumptions there which I dont think reflect fact. And Im quite familiar with company law and shareholders as I run my own company.

In this instance the shareholders are presumably, DIC and Hicks. Each camp has 50% of the shares. DIC may allocate their 50% of shares to 1, 2, 3 or more individuals but they'll still only have 50% of shares and hence, 50% of the voting rights. Likewise with Hicks and his sons.

As far as Im aware, neither moores or parry have any voting powers. I cannot see G&H buying up 100% of shares in the club then giving moores and parry voting powers which would effectively allow them, non shareholding 'directors' the ability to potentially block any plans they had.

Therefore whether moores and parry are in DIC's camp is immaterial. Even if they did, since DIC, Moores and Parry still wouldnt hold a share voting majority ie they could only muster 50% between them, they wouldnt be able to remove Hicks from the board. He (Hicks) would have to vote with them and turkeys dont vote for Christmas.

[coop]

Tom Hicks in denial but Liverpool are braced for Dubai takeover

Oliver Kay

Discussions will continue between Tom Hicks and Dubai International Capital (DIC) over the coming weeks, despite the Liverpool co-chairman’s vehement insistence last night that he is not about to sell his stake in the club. The Arab investment group is expected to become a co-owner of the Merseyside club next month by purchasing the 50 per cent stake held by George Gillett Jr in the first phase of a takeover process that will test the strength of Hicks’s latest denials.

The Times reported yesterday that, although Hicks intends to retain some of his shares and some of his influence at the club for the immediate future, he and Gillett, his co-owner, are willing to grant DIC permission to examine Liverpool’s accounts with a view to launching a takeover bid next month. Hicks denied those reports yesterday, claiming that they had been “planted . . . by parties with their own self-interested agenda” and that he is “personally, professionally and financially committed to the club and its supporters”, but numerous sources insist that his partnership with Gillett is finished and that DIC will start the first phase of its takeover within weeks.

At least Hicks’s latest statement did not deny that discussions are taking place. DIC’s interest never went away after it was gazumped by Hicks and Gillett a shade more than 12 months ago and although DIC turned down the Americans’ invitation to buy a 15 per cent stake in the club after a meeting in October, discussions have taken place behind the scenes since the start of this year, particularly since January 25, when Hicks announced a £350 million refinancing deal that brought them stability in the immediate future but left their regime looking all but unsustainable in the longer term.

Gillett, who was the catalyst behind the initial takeover, with Hicks arriving on the scene late in the process, conceded some time ago that the joint partnership was not working because of numerous tensions that had arisen between them. Gillett, the owner of the Montreal Canadiens ice hockey team, has subsequently “all but disappeared”, according to sources, declining to put his name to Hicks’s frequent statements – even that relating to the refinancing deal - and making clear to DIC his willingness to sell his 50 per cent stake.

His son, Foster, who was initially dispatched to Merseyside as a “link man” between the owners and Rafael BenÍtez, the manager, has spent the past month in Montreal, apparently with no plans to return to Britain.

Hicks, who was originally seen as the silent partner in the protest, has proved to be anything but. Even if he and BenÍtez have tried to build bridges since their infamous falling-out in November – when Hicks, in a series of interviews, declared that it was “time for Rafa to quit talking and concentrate on coaching the players we have” – the Texan has made himself deeply unpopular at Anfield.

Tom Hicks Jr, his son, has at least shown willing to ingratiate himself with the locals, but his attempts to do so backfired on Saturday, when he was confronted by supporters in a pub near Anfield after the 3-2 victory over Middlesbrough in which Fernando Torres, the club’s record £26.5 million signing, had scored a hat-trick.

While Gillett is expected to sell up within weeks, Hicks is determined to retain the majority of his stake for the immediate future, but DIC is looking for – and hopes to obtain – guarantees that he will sell out completely at a later date. Hicks spoke to DIC officials on a trip to Dubai last week and then, more significantly, spoke to their financial advisers on Thursday and Friday. The two parties remain some way apart on various issues, not least on Hicks’s wish to be seen as the senior partner in any coalition, but a variety of sources – by no means all of them with self-interested agendas – continue to indicate that the Anfield investment saga is about to enter a new chapter.

[Section_31]