fuck. DIC pull out ..

[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?

[Guest Josh W]

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

 

I agree, but we were quite down the road with DIC, and had an agreement in place complete with an exclusivity - surely DIC woud be pissed off we renaged on that for more money? Does Luca Neil ring any bells here? Exactly the same thing.

[isr]

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.

 

Well said. Look at this from another perspective.

 

Benfica have player A, who Liverpool are interested in.

 

Barcelona make a bid for A, which Benfica reject.

 

Liverpool make a bid, Benfica accept. Both chairmen shake on it.

 

A goes to Anfield, has a 2 week trial, passes medical, agrees personal terms.

 

When Liverpool go to Benfica to put final pen to paper, Benfica now say - "Hang on a minute. Barcelona are now offering us more. Can you give us an extra $3 million?"

 

Liverpool tell Benfica to sod off.

 

Who would you say is correct?

[Anny Road]

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.

 

Thats my point all this loe for the club is shite buy us float us make a killing

[isr]

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?

 

If the final deal DIC offered was markedly different to what they initially floated before getting the exclusivity, then no - it wouldn't be any different.

 

We don't know though.

 

And if you're dealing with Sheikh Makhtoum, you have to take honour (and dishonour) seriously.

[Brownie]

Paul, sorry Brownie, sorry Ian ;-)

 

DIC have never made an official bid at any point. If they had LFC under the takeover panel have to announce it. They may have made an unofficial one, but that's not worth a wank. Until they put a full official bid in, LFC leggally as well as morally to the rest of the other shareholders (and the club) need to keep their options open. Even DIC admitted in their press conference that David Moores was in favour of their bid and only the board was the stumbling block. So considering Moores owns 51% of the club, could they not leave it with Moores for a few days more to smooth out? They had after all taken 2 months to complete due dilegence.

 

I'm in no way saying I think Gillett is suddenly a better offer - I have no idea as I don't know the details, but then nobody knew the details of the DIC deal. In fact, the only details that got in to the press via the leak to the torygraph before the new year, everyone stuff their fingers in their ears, went "nah nah nah it's not happening" and quickly ignored everything that was said. That painted a very dim picture of DIC and one we'd have been lucky enough to miss out on. Was it the right picture? Who knows, this is the point. Everything up to now has been all about press manipulation by LFC and DIC to make DIC look like the perfect suitors even if perhaps they were not. They have been on a 2 month charm offensive and even managed to leak that document to the torygraph in the middle of it, which perhaps suggests they're not as super profesional as they think they are.

 

All in all having to sell up at all is pretty unpaletable to me. I really don't understand why we can't finance the new stadium on a combination of loans and naming rights like arsenal have done. But for whatever reason the board and in particular David Moores and Rick Parry think that is not possible. As far as I'm concerned anyone we end up with is a potential risk. All this shite about "the death fo the game/club" is all fucking arse. The game has changed and is not the same game I started to watch anyway. But I'm sure fellas who'd gone from the 50's were saying the same when everyone was kicking shite out of each other in the 70s' and 80's. Things change, it's the way it goes. Either get on board with where it's going or get off - i may still choose to get off. Some people are quick to forget how our club was formed in the 1st place - it was formed because a business man wanted to make a few bob out of his investment. No different to whichever person takes over the club now.

 

And finally, for all this crying about Gillett, what has everyone who follows hockey said about Gillett? He's come in, took the club over and pretty much allowed the sporting people get on with what they do. Isn't that really what we all want out of an owner? Is that not exactly what Shankly thought an owner should do? Too many people were hoping DIC were the Maktoums and would go into a financial war with Abramovich. Personally that's the last thing I wanted anyway. I just want a owner who is in the background, letting the people who run the club run it and we just get our new stadium out of it .

 

All fair points, and of course I realise that football has changed and will never be the working class sport it once was.

 

But it's clear to me that the board don't have that viewpoint, otherwise they'd have already sold the club to the highest bidder at some point during the last three years. They've been scouring the globe for the 'right' deal and then totally gone against that for extra wedge. I'm certain about that.

 

If Gillete hadn't come back in with a higher bid, we'd be owned by DIC now, that's a fact.

 

Are you a shareholder by any chance?

[Sangria]

All I want to know is how this deal is better for the club - and I doubt it is. Spin it whatever way you want but we were fed for weeks how this deal was perfect - match made in heaven etc etc etc.

Then in come the Yanks with an offer, that means more in the back pocket to the board and they bite their hands off.

 

I honestly think that DIC offered a safer and better option. I doubt very much wether I will be proved wrong. They can spin it anyway they want - tell me in black and white how this deal is better for the club - they never will.

I know the board have made a right balls of things at times but I always believed their hearts were in the right place. I now realise where things LFC are concerned I am just a mug, I believe what I want to believe. I suppose that is what supporters do.

[Barrington Womble]

Well said. Look at this from another perspective.

 

Benfica have player A, who Liverpool are interested in.

 

Barcelona make a bid for A, which Benfica reject.

 

Liverpool make a bid, Benfica accept. Both chairmen shake on it.

 

A goes to Anfield, has a 2 week trial, passes medical, agrees personal terms.

 

When Liverpool go to Benfica to put final pen to paper, Benfica now say - "Hang on a minute. Barcelona are now offering us more. Can you give us an extra $3 million?"

 

Liverpool tell Benfica to sod off.

 

Who would you say is correct?

 

We are not talking about selling a player. We are talking about the sale of a PLC. There are rules and the board is legally obliged to act in the interests of ALL shareholders. How many times does this have to be said??

[RedinSweden]

We are not talking about selling a player. We are talking about the sale of a PLC. There are rules and the board is legally obliged to act in the interests of ALL shareholders. How many times does this have to be said??

 

five times?

[Carradona]

Well said. Look at this from another perspective.

 

Benfica have player A, who Liverpool are interested in.

 

Barcelona make a bid for A, which Benfica reject.

 

Liverpool make a bid, Benfica accept. Both chairmen shake on it.

 

A goes to Anfield, has a 2 week trial, passes medical, agrees personal terms.

 

When Liverpool go to Benfica to put final pen to paper, Benfica now say - "Hang on a minute. Barcelona are now offering us more. Can you give us an extra $3 million?"

 

Liverpool tell Benfica to sod off.

 

Who would you say is correct?

 

Barca signed Simao?

[Barrington Womble]

All fair points, and of course I realise that football has changed and will never be the working class sport it once was.

 

But it's clear to me that the board don't have that viewpoint, otherwise they'd have already sold the club to the highest bidder at some point during the last three years. They've been scouring the globe for the 'right' deal and then totally gone against that for extra wedge. I'm certain about that.

 

If Gillete hadn't come back in with a higher bid, we'd be owned by DIC now, that's a fact.

 

Are you a shareholder by any chance?

 

I agree the board has been looking for different solutions, but remember selling 100% of the club was never been on the agenda till a few months back, until that point we were basically looking for someone to give us a load of cash for a minority share in the club.

 

I also think you're right, if Gillett didn't come back in, then we'd have been sold to DIC. But he did come back in and all this "we should have been true to DIC" isn't going to change that. The boards job is to look after LFC and it's shareholders, not the shareholders of DIC. By the looks of things Gillett's come back to the table with a different proposal. He's come back with more cash. He's come back with a new "personally underwritten" stadium proposal. he's got a new partner, which gives more financial backing to the deal and the partner has experience in construction and building stadia. We would be foolish not to listen. DIC, if they thought we were ideal partners as they had earlier suggested, imo are foolish for walking away so abruptly. Although it seems from listening to people who do business in that part of the world, it seems to be the way they do things. If it is, I'm quite glad we're not with them.

 

As for the shareholder thing - yes I am one. I also plan to vote against selling my shares and if they don't get the 90% I'll be able to keep mine - nothing to do with being against the take over, i just want to keep my shares. I also would happily take 4500 rather than the 5000 per share if we have the best solution for LFC. As yet Gillett has not been able to lay out his plans for me to even have an idea if he's a good suitor. This is why I don't understand why everyone is getting worked up right now. We don't know what's on the table and we never really knew what was on the table with DIC, it was all PR bullshit. My personal opinion is I trust the board to get this right. It might have been a massive fuck up allowing DIC to walk away - but it could also prove to be the best thing we've ever done. All some people seem worried about is "being a laughing stock of world football", "looking like amateurs", blah, blah. We are selling our football club, it has to be right, it has to be done right and if that meant allowing DIC to walk away then so be it.

[Guest bigf00t]

I agree the board has been looking for different solutions, but remember selling 100% of the club was never been on the agenda till a few months back, until that point we were basically looking for someone to give us a load of cash for a minority share in the club.

 

I also think you're right, if Gillett didn't come back in, then we'd have been sold to DIC. But he did come back in and all this "we should have been true to DIC" isn't going to change that. The boards job is to look after LFC and it's shareholders, not the shareholders of DIC. By the looks of things Gillett's come back to the table with a different proposal. He's come back with more cash. He's come back with a new "personally underwritten" stadium proposal. he's got a new partner, which gives more financial backing to the deal and the partner has experience in construction and building stadia. We would be foolish not to listen. DIC, if they thought we were ideal partners as they had earlier suggested, imo are foolish for walking away so abruptly. Although it seems from listening to people who do business in that part of the world, it seems to be the way they do things. If it is, I'm quite glad we're not with them.

 

As for the shareholder thing - yes I am one. I also plan to vote against selling my shares and if they don't get the 90% I'll be able to keep mine - nothing to do with being against the take over, i just want to keep my shares. I also would happily take 4500 rather than the 5000 per share if we have the best solution for LFC. As yet Gillett has not been able to lay out his plans for me to even have an idea if he's a good suitor. This is why I don't understand why everyone is getting worked up right now. We don't know what's on the table and we never really knew what was on the table with DIC, it was all PR bullshit. My personal opinion is I trust the board to get this right. It might have been a massive fuck up allowing DIC to walk away - but it could also prove to be the best thing we've ever done. All some people seem worried about is "being a laughing stock of world football", "looking like amateurs", blah, blah. We are selling our football club, it has to be right, it has to be done right and if that meant allowing DIC to walk away then so be it.

 

uh-huh.

[Thants]

Well said. Look at this from another perspective.

 

Benfica have player A, who Liverpool are interested in.

 

Barcelona make a bid for A, which Benfica reject.

 

Liverpool make a bid, Benfica accept. Both chairmen shake on it.

 

A goes to Anfield, has a 2 week trial, passes medical, agrees personal terms.

 

When Liverpool go to Benfica to put final pen to paper, Benfica now say - "Hang on a minute. Barcelona are now offering us more. Can you give us an extra $3 million?"

 

Liverpool tell Benfica to sod off.

 

 

 

Who would you say is correct?

Have we signed a new player??

[Barrington Womble]

uh-huh.

 

what the fuck does that mean? cock.

[wiiksie]

what the fuck does that mean? cock.

Mate dont worry about it. Bigfoot is the absolute last thing a sensitive thread like this needs, he is a total titmaster.

[Barrington Womble]

Mate dont worry about it. Bigfoot is the absolute last thing a sensitive thread like this needs, he is a total titmaster.

 

i'm not worried about it, i just thought he needed to be called a cock!

[Guest bigf00t]

Mate dont worry about it. Bigfoot is the absolute last thing a sensitive thread like this needs, he is a total titmaster.

 

So nobody else thinks the extra 500 might be influencing the "lets hear 'em out" stance?

 

titmaster, indeed.

[coop]

One thing that some people do forget about the DIC bid and how much cash they are worth.

 

The Sheikh was not personally putting in the cash it was the investment company DIC. They were taking out loans to pay for the Stadium. The Sheikh could easily afford to pay for it with loose change but its wasnt a plaything for him it was serious business venture so he wouldnt be pumping cash in all over the place.

 

Bigfoot is accusing me and other people of been naive so what sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to what other offer.

 

We gave DIC exclusive rights to complete their Dure Dilligence which they did taking approx. 6 weeks. During the 6 weeks DIC and Moores talked about figures and both verablly agreed on a price before due dilligence was finished.

 

Once this due dilligence was finished and an offer was made you cant expect Moores to instantly sign away the Crown Jewels of Liverpool FC without careful consideration. It doesnt help when they seem to drag their feet and reports in the paper saying how DIC would be selling us after 7 years and that they were openly encouraging other investors in to help them fund the Stadium

 

Now comes the spanner in the works in George Gillett. He asked to see the books and completed dilligence after 3 days and made a more attractive offer. Yes it means more cash to the shareholders but we also dont know what else makes it more attractive. Little by little more and more details are coming out about Gilletts bid. We now know Hicks is involved so far more cash is available. Who knows what else.

 

Let me remind people that that both DIC and Rick Parry stated that their bid was a business deal it was not a rich mans plaything. There was no way we were going on a Chelsea spending spree. We would have been owned by Dubai in name no by their pockets.

 

We are more likely to spend money under the ownership of Hicks and Gillett (due to Hicks track record in purchasing top players for other clubs he has owned).

 

I understand different cultures and the Shiek feeling we were been dishonest but in a few years time if it had gone pear shaped under DIC ownership we could have regretted not giving Gillett and Hicks consideration.

[Barrington Womble]

the echo's latest, not much new.

 

http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/liverpo...-name_page.html

 

Chris Bascombe

 

THE American ownership of Liverpool Football Club is expected to be agreed early next week.

 

George Gillett jnr and Dallas businessman Tom Hicks spent yesterday in the city finalising details of their joint £170m purchase.

 

They returned to America last night, after the involvement of billionaire Hicks had added a new dimension to the deal.

 

Hicks and Gillett have now become partners in the bid for the club, with Hicks seen as the key factor in David Moores’ reassessment of his options, which led to the collapse of the DIC proposal.

 

Hicks, the 60-year-old owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team and Dallas Stars hockey club, has a proven track record in sports ownership. He can also count on President George W Bush among his close circle of friends, and has been a significant contributor to Bush’s campaign fundraising.

 

He is also acting as a committee member on the team pushing Rudolph Giuliani’s bid to become president in 2008.

 

The Anfield board believe his weight adds a fresh credibility to the Gillett bid

 

Chief executive Rick Parry told the ECHO today: “While we have always had a good relationship with George Gillett, it’s clear the involvement of Tom Hicks adds another dimension and considerable strength to the bid, and was a very significant factor in us looking afresh at the proposals.”

 

There is now expected to be rapid progress, with only fine tuning standing in the way of agreement.

 

Moores, Hicks and Gillett will certainly have shaken hands over dinner yesterday afternoon, when they were entertained by the chairman and his wife.

 

Although neither American is yet in a position to talk publicly about their involvement, sources close to them said an announcement was anticipated early next week.

 

The Anfield hierarchy will hope the latest revelations will end the uncertainty and explain why Moores was having second thoughts so late into the Dubai process.

[WeAreTheBest]

Edit never mind

[Barrington Womble]

So nobody else thinks the extra 500 might be influencing the "lets hear 'em out" stance?

 

titmaster, indeed.

 

Are you really as stupid as you sound? Of course the 500 quid is making a difference. It forces the boards hand to listen to it. They have to be seen to attempt to get the best price. That is their legal duty as board members of a PLC. Fuck me, you are an idiot.

[WeAreTheBest]

Seems to me DIC walked before being pushed providing all the stuff coming out now is true

[Barrington Womble]

One thing that some people do forget about the DIC bid and how much cash they are worth.

 

The Sheikh was not personally putting in the cash it was the investment company DIC. They were taking out loans to pay for the Stadium. The Sheikh could easily afford to pay for it with loose change but its wasnt a plaything for him it was serious business venture so he wouldnt be pumping cash in all over the place.

 

Bigfoot is accusing me and other people of been naive so what sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen to what other offer.

 

We gave DIC exclusive rights to complete their Dure Dilligence which they did taking approx. 6 weeks. During the 6 weeks DIC and Moores talked about figures and both verablly agreed on a price before due dilligence was finished.

 

Once this due dilligence was finished and an offer was made you cant expect Moores to instantly sign away the Crown Jewels of Liverpool FC without careful consideration. It doesnt help when they seem to drag their feet and reports in the paper saying how DIC would be selling us after 7 years and that they were openly encouraging other investors in to help them fund the Stadium

 

Now comes the spanner in the works in George Gillett. He asked to see the books and completed dilligence after 3 days and made a more attractive offer. Yes it means more cash to the shareholders but we also dont know what else makes it more attractive. Little by little more and more details are coming out about Gilletts bid. We now know Hicks is involved so far more cash is available. Who knows what else.

 

Let me remind people that that both DIC and Rick Parry stated that their bid was a business deal it was not a rich mans plaything. There was no way we were going on a Chelsea spending spree. We would have been owned by Dubai in name no by their pockets.

 

We are more likely to spend money under the ownership of Hicks and Gillett (due to Hicks track record in purchasing top players for other clubs he has owned).

 

I understand different cultures and the Shiek feeling we were been dishonest but in a few years time if it had gone pear shaped under DIC ownership we could have regretted not giving Gillett and Hicks consideration.

 

great post.