DIC: takeover thread

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by RedinSweden

So if you are basing it on 99.9999999% and it happens in 0.00000001% of the contracts, what about the other 0.00000009%?

serious question, why would they draw up contracts that differs from everyone elses?

first refusual - common practice

90 day period to match the bid - common practice

why on earth would everything above or beyond that be any different?

[Karl]

Originally Posted by real red

Is that from the next series of Grand Designs?

[dave u]

Hicks negotiated with DIC about letting them buy 15%. Surely that suggests they can sell off bits and pieces if they choose.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by dave u

Hicks negotiated with DIC about letting them buy 15%. Surely that suggests they can sell off bits and pieces if they choose.

forgot about that.

[drewy]

Originally Posted by dave u

Hicks negotiated with DIC about letting them buy 15%. Surely that suggests they can sell off bits and pieces if they choose.

Hicks and Gillette wasn't it, at that time?

Anyway I think the point we are all discussing hinges on whether Gillette/Hicks manage to move things forward on a level that is agreeable to the three parties, rather than things being done in a hostile way ie 90 day rule etc.

[Anny Road]

Originally Posted by drewy

So the original contract states they can't? But if the above happens thay can? Begs the question, what's the point of a contract/partnership?

Face it, we don't know either way.

The point is it stops one partner from doing stuff without the other agreement.
As for the proposed 15% sell off last year I would imagine GG would have been all for it as it would have given him a majority stake.

[spider-neil]

Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum
Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum
Tick, tick Hick's goes boom

[Remington]

Originally Posted by dave u

Hicks negotiated with DIC about letting them buy 15%. Surely that suggests they can sell off bits and pieces if they choose.

Hey, still no clip from yesterday? The mad david usher wrecked to bits in liverpool youtube piece won't do, you know.

[spider-neil]

I don't like hicks but you have to admit the guy has balls, seriously, he is turning down a 40% profit PLUS an extra potential 40% from future liverpool success without doing any work (and with no risk as the dic would pay up the loan) and all this after just one year.

[dave u]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum
Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum
Tick, tick Hick's goes boom

Class. Can't beat a bit of the Fresh Prince.

[Rafa Shankly]

Originally Posted by spider-neil

Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum
Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum
Tick, tick Hick's goes boom

whether they take over or not that has to be sang at the games.

[EmilHamilton]

Tom Hicks may win battle over Liverpool

Mar 7 2008 by Tony Barrett, Liverpool Echo

TOM HICKS was today edging closer to taking majority control of Liverpool.

DIC has indicated it may now be willing to take a 49% stake by buying out all but 1% of George Gillett's shares.

The remaining 1% could then be bought by Hicks, leaving him as the majority shareholder - a scenario one Anfield figure has described as "a potential nightmare".

It is believed DIC has not dropped its desire to buy the club outright in the future but for the time being may be ready to enter into a deal which would see Hicks investment increase.

The situation is further complicated by the fact Liverpool's current co-owners are speaking to DIC separately and even though Hicks is now believed to have indicated he will not block DIC in their bid to take a minority stake, the Dubai consortium would still have to convince Gillett to accept its offer.

Gillett is still to agree to sell though and having fallen out so dramatically with Hicks it remains questionable whether he would be willing to do any deal with him.

The Hicks camp remain insistent that although they are aware DIC has indicated a change of stance, they have not yet received any formal notification from them regarding this.

But the two parties could meet in Dubai next week.

The current situation will further dismay and confuse Liverpool fans who are seeing a complex deal for the future of their club being played out via the media on an almost hourly basis.

Paul Lunt, a litigation partner at Liverpool law firm Brabners who specialises in shareholders rights, said: "The impasse highlights the unattractiveness of being a minority shareholder.

"Tom Hicks and DIC have been in talks about the future ownership and control of Liverpool , and it seems both are willing to consider the possibility of some future role for the other.

"The sticking point seems to be the fact that neither party is willing to accept a role as a minority shareholder; each of them will only consider a controlling stake.

"This is not surprising. The strict rights of a shareholder holding less than 50% of the shares in a private limited company are generally fairly limited.

Meanwhile, on the pitch, Javier Mascherano is a doubt for the game against Newcastle tomorrow having picked up a dead leg in the4-0 win over West Ham.

Oh well. If the Arabs can wipe our debt and Hicks can build our stadium, personally I don't care.

[spider-neil]

Originally Posted by EmilHamilton

Oh well. If the Arabs can wipe our debt and Hicks can build our stadium, personally I don't care.

they would wipe out half the debt (gillett's half) at least that means we have to service 15M in interest payments. we could handle that.

[Josey Wales]

Originally Posted by Anny Road

The point is it stops one partner from doing stuff without the other agreement.

It looked pink, though she said it was brown. I was drunk however.

[real red]

Originally Posted by Karl

Is that from the next series of Grand Designs?

I did search on architecture glasgow and that came up. I've actually no idea what it is, where it is, or if it's any more real than our new stadium yet.

Kenny liked it though.