DIC: takeover thread

[coop]

If Hicks gets 51% Moores and Parry will be gone.

Hicks will have his own people there giving him the extra voting rights.

[Remington]

Originally Posted by coop

If Hicks gets 51% Moores and Parry will be gone.

Hicks will have his own people there giving him the extra voting rights.

Yeah, but that's were the Trejo trio comes in.

[havarantagain]

Originally Posted by coop

Wouldnt it not make a difference though what DIC invest as there will be no contract regarding what each invest has a knock on effect for the other owner.

Like i said if DIC are going to take the 49% then they obviously have something up their sleeve.

As Baldrick would say ' as cunning as a cunning fox thats just passed its exams in cunningness at cunning school'.

Now let me see, what could it be?
as stake holders (D I C) 49 or more realistically 50% then maybe they will block any further loans such as for the stadium build and thus force hillbilly hicks hand. The current loans need re setting do they not in two years as well. The end is 'nigh' on upon us, praise your lord who ever he may be.

[Carra_is_legend]

Originally Posted by havarantagain

Now let me see, what could it be?
as stake holders (D I C) 49 or more realistically 50% then maybe they will block any further loans such as for the stadium build and thus force hillbilly hicks hand. The current loans need re setting do they not in two years as well. The end is 'nigh' on upon us, praise your lord who ever he may be.

If DIC get 49%, how can they BLOCK someone's actions with 51% control and is the chairman????

[Anny Road]

Originally Posted by Carra_is_legend

If DIC get 49%, how can they BLOCK someone's actions with 51% control and is the chairman????

In order to get the previous refinance deal Gillet had to put up half of the security. If DIC refuse no way could Hicks do it on his own. He struggled with a partner he will be fucked without one.

[drewy]

Would somebody mind telling me how G can sell 1% to H when it's against the original agreement? I thought any sales of shares where for each others whole amount as to break them up broke certain rules?

[Remington]

Originally Posted by drewy

Would somebody mind telling me how G can sell 1% to H when it's against the original agreement? I thought any sales of shares where for each others whole amount as to break them up broke certain rules?

Yeah. That's what I've always thought aswell. But some of the presumably well-informed lads over here seems to think that's not the cause.

[Anny Road]

Originally Posted by drewy

Would somebody mind telling me how G can sell 1% to H when it's against the original agreement? I thought any sales of shares where for each others whole amount as to break them up broke certain rules?

They could effectively do what they like if both parties agree to it. The partnership could be dissolved. Or hicks could effectively buy Gillets shares and then sell 49% to DIC. There is always a way when money and lawers are involved.

[Dirk]

Nobody knows other than those involved in the deal. This is the only thing I am certain of regarding takeover issues. All this speculation is mindless. Nobody knows.

[Remington]

Originally Posted by drewy

Would somebody mind telling me how G can sell 1% to H when it's against the original agreement? I thought any sales of shares where for each others whole amount as to break them up broke certain rules?

This is how I got it explained for me, yesterday.
From: So who heard that then...

Originally Posted by Remington

That's not possible. That 50% has to be sold in one lump; it cant be split into 49% and 1%, not without refinancing the whole thing.

Originally Posted by spider-neil

not it doesn't, hicks has first refusal on gilletts 'SHARES', if gillet wanted to sell hicks 1% of shares he could but must surely know the DIC would be fools to buy the other 49%

Originally Posted by Remington

First refusal on the whole amount, yes, but I believe it's written into the contract that if either part wishes to sell his shares it must be the whole amount (standard procedure in partner deals this big), atleast I've read that somewhere in this whole mess of threads and newsflashes.

Originally Posted by spider-neil

nope, the shares are gilletts to do with as he pleases once he gives hicks first refusal, if hicks wants to sell 1 share (or whatever) he can they are HIS shares but as I said before gillett selling 1 share would effectively render the other 49 shares worthless unless he sells the rest to the person who bought that single share.

I'm absolutely 100% certain on this point and I'm certain this is hicks last throw of the dice as it (seems) he has been able to match the dic bid for gilletts 50%.

Originally Posted by Remington

Then I believe in (and trust) you.

[Dirk]

Without wanting to offend Neil because he's a good red, he hasn't got a clue, none of us have.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by drewy

Would somebody mind telling me how G can sell 1% to H when it's against the original agreement? I thought any sales of shares where for each others whole amount as to break them up broke certain rules?

to make things very clear

a) once gillett has given hicks first refusal and 90 days pass he (gillett) can sell to whom he likes in part or the whole, he could sell 10% to five investors if he wished.

b) the DIC could invest 1 billion pounds and this wouldn't effect the majority shareholder rights (if it were hicks) one iota. i.e hicks has no obligation to attempt to match that investment.

c) if the DIC paid off gilletts half of the loan (and you'd have to presume they would) they are in no way whatsoever liable for hicks half of the loan when the loan comes up for finance its down to hicks and hicks alone.

goodness only knows why the dic would agree to such a deal

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by Dirk

Without wanting to offend Neil because he's a good red, he hasn't got a clue, none of us have.

maybe, but I know gillett can break up his shares if he wishes (after giving hicks first refusal)

[Dirk]

Neil, unless you've seen the terms of the contract, then you have no idea, there's been that many claims and that many counter claims, how can you possibly know what's the case and what isn't?

[drewy]

I have to say I don't think it can be split, I remember reading somewhere that under the original terms it was a partnership and would stay that way with neither partner being able to split his share.

If either wanted to sell it was in it's entirity REGARDLESS of whether it was to each other or a third party. I know I read that somewhere.

Anyway, none of us really know I just find it amusing the amount of experts that have suddenly popped up none of whom are privvy to the facts.