fuck. DIC pull out ..

[wiiksie]

2 February 2007

EXCLUSIVE: FURIOUS SHEIKHS: KOP HAS NO HONOUR

By Neil McLeman

 

THE Dubai Royal family ordered their investment company to pull out of a deal to buy Liverpool as they believe the Anfield board had acted “dishonourably”.

 

Dubai International Capital ended takeover talks in fury after Liverpool decided to consider a rival bid from US sports tycoon George Gillett. And the move was made not by executives negotiating the £450million buy-out, but from within Sheikh Mohammed’s ruling Al Maktoum family.

 

The revelation, accompanied by widespread anger in the Gulf State, makes any chance of resurrecting the deal seem impossible.

 

A source in Dubai said last night: “The decision came from the top. There was a verbal agreement to buy the club and a handshake made with Mr (David) Moores (Liverpool chairman). They thought they had a deal. They consider Liverpool acted dishonourably and they did not want to be drawn into an auction. They felt Liverpool were taking the mickey. Led by chief executive Sameer Al Ansari, a self-confessed Liverpool fan, the DIC had completed due diligence of the Anfield books.

 

 

Chairman and majority stakeholder David Moores and his chief executive, Rick Parry, had granted the investment company, owned by Dubai’s ruling Al Maktoum family, the exclusive right to study the club’s books despite interest from Gillett.

 

 

The DIC was willing to fund a £200m 60,000-seat stadium and cover long-term debts of about £80m.

 

 

But with the American, a former owner of the Harlem Globetrotters, then making a higher offer, Tuesday’s Anfield board meeting decided to delay rubber-stamping the Dubai offer.

 

 

Gillett is being joined in his bid by Tom Hicks, owner of Texas Rangers baseball team. He has wide experience in the US construction industry.

:D might as well be: 'one of the cleaners at Mirror HQ said last night:'

 

Mate, please don't quote the redtops.

[Eldrich]

With all the shenanigans going on over the past few days imagine if DIC did take over and what this would mean when we are dealing with transfers of players. Imagine for example that we bid £10m for a player and we have a verbal agreement for this and then another team comes in and bids £11m. Would DIC have walked away from the transfer claiming the other parties are 'dishonourable'. If they really wanted this to go through then there would have been more dialogue instead of a take it or leave it attitude.

[Dirk]

Welcome to the Anfield Ravens. U S A! U S A! U S A! U S A! U S A! U S A! U S A!

[Anny Road]

2 February 2007

EXCLUSIVE: FURIOUS SHEIKHS: KOP HAS NO HONOUR

By Neil McLeman

 

THE Dubai Royal family ordered their investment company to pull out of a deal to buy Liverpool as they believe the Anfield board had acted “dishonourably”.

 

 

I wanted them to take over but whats all this shit about. They can fuck right off. We are talking about a deal worth close on 1/2 a billion. Moores has to look at other bids. Maybe he should'nt have shaken hands on a deal ahead of closing it but equally the Arabs should not be crying to the press. You were out bid your negotiating tactics failled. I don't like the Yanks one bit but I am starting to distrust the Arabs a whole lot more.

 

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA....................................

[Boyspen]

Are American right-wing ethics any better/worse than those of Dubai?

 

At least American People vote every four years to see whether they want such a cunt. I am not aware of any such arrangement in the democratic republic of Dubai(but somebody will correct me)

[Kurt]

At least American People vote every four years to see whether they want such a cunt. I am not aware of any such arrangement in the democratic republic of Dubai(but somebody will correct me)

 

 

Maybe so... But that doesn`t mean that the guy with the most votes win the election though...

[coop]

I wanted them to take over but whats all this shit about. They can fuck right off. We are talking about a deal worth close on 1/2 a billion. Moores has to look at other bids. Maybe he should'nt have shaken hands on a deal ahead of closing it but equally the Arabs should not be crying to the press. You were out bid your negotiating tactics failled. I don't like the Yanks one bit but I am starting to distrust the Arabs a whole lot more.

 

USA USA USA USA USA USA USA....................................

 

Its been touched upon on RAWK and i think its a very good point. If DIC were so impatient over this deal how would they have reacted if they took over and we lost a couple of games. They would just sack the manager and employ a new one.

[cochcaer]

Yee-Haw! I got me a soccer franchise.

[Dirk]

 

Van Nistelrooy to Liverpool.

[isr]

I wanted them to take over but whats all this shit about. They can fuck right off. We are talking about a deal worth close on 1/2 a billion. Moores has to look at other bids. Maybe he should'nt have shaken hands on a deal ahead of closing it but equally the Arabs should not be crying to the press. You were out bid your negotiating tactics failled. I don't like the Yanks one bit but I am starting to distrust the Arabs a whole lot more.

 

Seems like Parry started the crying to the press, with the whole "DIC were trying to bully Liverpool" story. That comment was begging for a response.

 

I think, from Dubai's perspective, the issue is that, having been given exclusivity, having been given verbal assurances by Moore et al, having been talked to the rafters by the club - being forced to compete at the last minute against a previously rejected bidder smacked of "squeezing extra cash after the deal has been agreed".

 

Remember what DIC said in their initial statement - "we will not overpay for assets".

 

One of the biggest things which worry me (which I may yet be proved wrong about) is that, even though Parry and Moore are desperate for some bit of positive PR - we still haven't got any details on what makes Gillette's offer better than DIC's.

 

This, and the inescapable fact that Liverpool FC haven't behaved in a manner befitting our traditions (yes I know - rose tinted bollocks). Oh well, no point rehashing over what has already been discussed. We need more concrete details as to what is really going on.

 

Oh great - now LFC get to be owned by one of Bush's buddies. Words fail me .... :$

[isr]

Its been touched upon on RAWK and i think its a very good point. If DIC were so impatient over this deal how would they have reacted if they took over and we lost a couple of games. They would just sack the manager and employ a new one.

 

Apples and oranges. If they think you're trying to hoodwink them, they won't tolerate it for a second.

 

Thats where the reputation for being astute financiers and managers partly comes from.

 

That doesn't translate into short-termism when it comes to running an operation. Their record doesn't reflect this. Even in sporting ventures (horse racing, A-1, etc), they have demonstrated long-term thinking, not knee-jerk reactions.

[The Bugged Out]

the shareholders got offered more money for their shares

 

simple really

[Anubis]

Welcome to the Anfield Ravens. U S A! U S A! U S A! U S A! U S A! U S A! U S A!

 

 

Shit. Hadn't thought about that. Those 'USA' chants are about to come back and kick us in the balls. Big-time.

 

Oh, and I love Ravens. Good name....

[isr]

the shareholders got offered more money for their shares

 

simple really

 

:smile: Yes, we know that.

 

What I'm saying is - if there was something specific in Gillette's bid which was better for the club (not shareholders) than DIC's, my feeling is that it would have been leaked to the press by now. If only to combat some of the negative reactions.

[Guest bigf00t]

Its been touched upon on RAWK and i think its a very good point. If DIC were so impatient over this deal how would they have reacted if they took over and we lost a couple of games. They would just sack the manager and employ a new one.

 

Its this kind of mindless bullshit which is really starting to piss me off now.

 

DIC were not impatient over the deal- they took a good 2-3 months to sort everything out and had an agreement with the board.

 

The board let them meet the manager... meet the players... went into the press and told everybody how brilliant DIC would be.

 

 

Another bid comes in- and please stop being naive- the ONLY reason its considered is the 500 more a share... bottom line.

 

 

And the only reason i think DIC is better is simply because our club is alot safer in their hands. Just like ISR posted- If we miss out on the CL a couple of seasons in a row or something, we'll be in financial trouble- DIC would be able to ride the storm with the billions in their bank while Gilette will have the banks banging down the door.

 

 

I've suddenly got alot more respect for the mancs- atleast they were willing to try and fight it... Most of you seem to be bending over and dropping your trousers to your ankles.

[Anubis]

And the only reason i think DIC is better is simply because our club is alot safer in their hands. Just like ISR posted- If we miss out on the CL a couple of seasons in a row or something, we'll be in financial trouble- DIC would be able to ride the storm with the billions in their bank while Gilette will have the banks banging down the door.

 

Possibly why Hicks is now on board. However, I share your unease. I too think DIC would have provided more stability than the gung-ho attitude that prevails in American business. I don't think people are rushing to accept their new masters, people are just looking for positives in a bad situation.

[coop]

Its this kind of mindless bullshit which is really starting to piss me off now.

 

DIC were not impatient over the deal- they took a good 2-3 months to sort everything out and had an agreement with the board.

 

The board let them meet the manager... meet the players... went into the press and told everybody how brilliant DIC would be.

 

 

Another bid comes in- and please stop being naive- the ONLY reason its considered is the 500 more a share... bottom line.

 

 

And the only reason i think DIC is better is simply because our club is alot safer in their hands. Just like ISR posted- If we miss out on the CL a couple of seasons in a row or something, we'll be in financial trouble- DIC would be able to ride the storm with the billions in their bank while Gilette will have the banks banging down the door.

 

 

I've suddenly got alot more respect for the mancs- atleast they were willing to try and fight it... Most of you seem to be bending over and dropping your trousers to your ankles.

 

I love you more then any pig.

[Barrington Womble]

Shit. Hadn't thought about that. Those 'USA' chants are about to come back and kick us in the balls. Big-time.

 

Oh, and I love Ravens. Good name....

 

we need to reclaim the chant and start singing it before anyone else does!

[Barrington Womble]

Seems like Parry started the crying to the press, with the whole "DIC were trying to bully Liverpool" story. That comment was begging for a response.

 

I think, from Dubai's perspective, the issue is that, having been given exclusivity, having been given verbal assurances by Moore et al, having been talked to the rafters by the club - being forced to compete at the last minute against a previously rejected bidder smacked of "squeezing extra cash after the deal has been agreed".

 

Remember what DIC said in their initial statement - "we will not overpay for assets".

 

One of the biggest things which worry me (which I may yet be proved wrong about) is that, even though Parry and Moore are desperate for some bit of positive PR - we still haven't got any details on what makes Gillette's offer better than DIC's.

 

This, and the inescapable fact that Liverpool FC haven't behaved in a manner befitting our traditions (yes I know - rose tinted bollocks). Oh well, no point rehashing over what has already been discussed. We need more concrete details as to what is really going on.

 

Oh great - now LFC get to be owned by one of Bush's buddies. Words fail me .... :$

 

The point is, it didn't have to be better, it just had to be good enough to make it worth listening to - both from a legal standpoint and from a "best deal" stand point. If that makes DIC pull out, it might turn out to be a worse deal, but it is still the boars duty to listen to it. Parry has as good as said that when he said something like "we always understood DIC could walk away".

[Anny Road]

The point is, it didn't have to be better, it just had to be good enough to make it worth listening to - both from a legal standpoint and from a "best deal" stand point. If that makes DIC pull out, it might turn out to be a worse deal, but it is still the boars duty to listen to it. Parry has as good as said that when he said something like "we always understood DIC could walk away".

 

There are some massive contadictions in the DIC statements and thier actions. All this talk of love for our club and backing ud with huge resourses yet when anither bid come in with slightly more cash on the table they walk.

This does not sound like much of a comittment to me.

 

'We wont pay over the odds for assets' hang on a minute I thought we were the greatest team in the world. Speaking about us like this in perely business terms does not sit with walking away when another business makes a offer.

[Guest Josh W]

The point is, it didn't have to be better, it just had to be good enough to make it worth listening to - both from a legal standpoint and from a "best deal" stand point. If that makes DIC pull out, it might turn out to be a worse deal, but it is still the boars duty to listen to it. Parry has as good as said that when he said something like "we always understood DIC could walk away".

 

Do you DIC would kick up such a fuss if Liverpool were LEGALLY obliged to talk to Gillett? Serious question here because it seems a train thought is coming into play that Moores was doing something he had to. The truth is he wasn't, he was re-considering a better financial offer for the shareholders not necessarily better for the team. Do you honestly think that these two men with a combined wealth the same as Malcolm Glazier, can give us what we need?

[Guest Josh W]

There are some massive contadictions in the DIC statements and thier actions. All this talk of love for our club and backing ud with huge resourses yet when anither bid come in with slightly more cash on the table they walk.

This does not sound like much of a comittment to me.

 

'We wont pay over the odds for assets' hang on a minute I thought we were the greatest team in the world. Speaking about us like this in perely business terms does not sit with walking away when another business makes a offer.

 

All good points, but why would someone who had AGREED a fee, undertaken due dilligance, made the offer then have to wait while the owner considered another 11th hour offer from someone that had already been rejected so he can line his own pocket? We renaged on a verbal agreement, and an exclusivity order for more money pure and simple. Most people would work under the same circumstances and as a club we have done the same thing many times for players - Lucas Neill and Simao spring to mind and and look how we the fans lambasted those players and clubs? Swings in roundabouts.

[isr]

There are some massive contadictions in the DIC statements and thier actions. All this talk of love for our club and backing ud with huge resourses yet when anither bid come in with slightly more cash on the table they walk.

 

You're being selective with your memory. From the very begining, they have emphasised again, and again, and again, that their interest in Liverpool is business-motivated first. They have a firm valuation in their minds, and won't go above it. Additionally, if they think the other side is taking the mickey, they won't stand for it.

 

We knew all this from day one. Nothing has changed, in that respect.

[RedinSweden]

Do you DIC would kick up such a fuss if Liverpool were LEGALLY obliged to talk to Gillett? Serious question here because it seems a train thought is coming into play that Moores was doing something he had to. The truth is he wasn't, he was re-considering a better financial offer for the shareholders not necessarily better for the team. Do you honestly think that these two men with a combined wealth the same as Malcolm Glazier, can give us what we need?

 

If the offer is better for the shareholders, isn't it his responsibility to review it?

[paulbt38]

2 February 2007

EXCLUSIVE: FURIOUS SHEIKHS: KOP HAS NO HONOUR

By Neil McLeman

 

A source in Dubai said last night: “The decision came from the top. There was a verbal agreement to buy the club and a handshake made with Mr (David) Moores (Liverpool chairman). They thought they had a deal. They consider Liverpool acted dishonourably and they did not want to be drawn into an auction. They felt Liverpool were taking the mickey. Led by chief executive Sameer Al Ansari, a self-confessed Liverpool fan, the DIC had completed due diligence of the Anfield books.

 

 

I haven't made my mind up yet about the yanks but I don't buy all this dishonourable crap. If DIC felt that their verbal agreement and handshake was binding then what was the point in completing 2 months of due diligence. They may have had their verbal agreement but if after completing the due diligence they didn't like what they saw then they still could have pulled out. Why should it be different for LFC?