DIC: takeover thread

[coop]

Cant see it bothering Hicks to be honest and he knows we wont do a boycott of merchandise, matches etc because we would then be affecting DIC.

Hicks cares about the cash not about the fans.

[Rashid]

I simply cannot understand this. DIC are serious guys as is this Staveley, I wonder what prompted them to agree to this. Hicks wins so badly its untrue, it's a rout! Hicks gets one of the world's richest men onboard and keeps control. He cannot be allowed to set foot into Anfield again.

[coop]

Thats not going to bother him though is it. Glazier never visits Old Trafford and he doesnt give two fucks because the money is rolling in.

[Rashid]

The key thing is we won't be paupers anymore, and if the loans do fuck up we have the security of DIC - that's surely a good thing. We can then concentrate on the football and let DIC deal with Hicks in the long term. This situation is better than 6 months ago when we had these two cunts and there was no sign of DIC.

The thing is though Coop, Hicks and his son do want to be loved by the fans.

[coop]

Will make an interesting summer to see what kind of transfer budget we have as i would have thought DIC would want to make some kind of financial statement.

[l19red]

what i really want to know is where is Professor Tom Cannon while all of this is going on? The fucking bluenose meff.

an old story featuring the prof.

Reds duo unlikely to sell, says expert
21/01/2008 - 15:37:46

BreakingNews.ie: Archives :2007-12-16

[Dirk]

If DIC fund the stadium, will Hicks owe them for his half? Could they veto borowing against the club to pay for his half? Is it possible they could force him out this way?

[coop]

SSN now mentioning 'Major developments in the takeover of Liverpool'.

Must be about Gillett agreeing to sell up.

Its not breaking news and was just a throw away comment as they get ready to preview 'Owen Vs Torres Showdown' - fucking showdown, stupid Sky cunts.

[Mr T]

Originally Posted by l19red what i really want to know is where is Professor Tom Cannon while all of this is going on? The fucking bluenose meff. an old story featuring the prof. Reds duo unlikely to sell, says expert 21/01/2008 - 15:37:46 BreakingNews.ie: Archives :2007-12-16

I'd be so embarrassed if I went to Cannon's University. The man makes an arse of himself every few months and in doing so he wrecks his institution’s respectability.

[hamstrung]

[Kopite]

Originally Posted by Mr T I'd be so embarrassed if I went to Cannon's University. The man makes an arse of himself every few months and in doing so he wrecks his institution’s respectability.

Can you imagine going for a job and saying you went to Buckingham University Business School?

You'd be laughed out of the company.

[Rashid]

Originally Posted by Dirk If DIC fund the stadium, will Hicks owe them for his half? Could they veto borowing against the club to pay for his half? Is it possible they could force him out this way?

When they restructure the loans they will want personal guaratees from each of the owners, this will apply for the stadium and the current loan. I very much doubt Hicks will be able to do this...

The crunch though will come when it comes to the clublosingmoney each year due to the loans, that's when DIC will come into their own.

[Neil G]

People are wondering how DIC will be happy with 49%, and why they're confident that they'll be able to get overall control eventually.

Isn't it possible that the deal might include an agreement that Hicks will sell his stake to DIC once the stadium is finished for an agreed price, and that he receives a share of the profits from it for a certain number of years afterwards? That way Hicks gets to walk away with a massive profit in his pocket, a continuing income stream from the club, another fantastic stadium on his CV, and his reputation as a sports investor enhanced. DIC have the knowledge that within ten years at the most they will have sole ownership of the club, with the foundations laid to make it the biggest and best in the world. Everyone's happy.

As for how decisions will be made between Hicks and DIC: regardless of whether or not there's a sell-on agreement, I can't imagine for one moment that it will be as simple as Hicks having the final say over everything by virtue of his majority stake. There is absolutely no way DIC would agree to that. The deal will have a multitude of different voting arrangements for different issues. Maybe some critical issues will require the consent of both parties, while others deemed to be less critical might be able to be decided by Hicks alone, albeit with DIC being appropriately consulted. Alternatively Hicks might have secured the final say over issues that are particularly important to him, such as the stadium and possibly managerial appointments, while being prepared to give DIC equal weight on other subjects where he feels their position will coincide with his. Some issues might be decided by the number of shares held, while others may be decided by the number of seats on the board. There won't be a 'one size fits all' arrangement for every single decision that might need to be taken by the board.

DIC know what they're doing. If they're confident this deal can be made to work for them and for the club then so am I. Assuming it goes through of course.

[Rashid]

I think like Neil G just said that there is an agreement to buy the rest later at some point going by Staveley's confidence in getting 100% later.

Amanda Staveley, DIC's chief negotiator, told The Independent that, after a day of more intense negotiations, the consortium had convinced both Hicks and Gillett that it had the financial means to enable the club to build a new stadium and that it would be purchasing all but 1 per cent of the half share in the club, held by Gillett. "All parties have now reached agreement, Tom Hicks knows that in the long run we will be 100 per cent owners of the club but we are prepared to play a waiting game," Staveley said. "We will be able to pay the price for the financing of the club and construction of a new stadium."

[Rashid]

I wonder how long Parry's love Carlseberg will now last...

[Mr T]

It seems a shrewd move by Rafa to keep Hicks 'onside' now doesn't it?

He knew that Hicks was scrabbling around trying to stay at the club but Gillett wanted out. He had done the initial damage which smoked the Americans out of their hole. But he could have done nothing more to alter how it panned out in the long run. If he wanted to keep his job it would make sense, as an insurance policy, not to be so hostile to Hicks and blame it all on that little rat Gillett.