Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Dubai International Capital (DIC)


Rashid
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 665
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The finance deal ran for a year from when they took it out, and they took it out just before they took us over, which unless I'm mistaken would be a year ago today. OK, they didn't take us over as such a year ago, but that was when they first got hold of a majority share.

 

If this had been said a week, maybe two weeks ago I could believe it was possible, but only because there was still time, and this would mean Hicks had got finance for his half.

 

But no, I don't believe it. He's signed, reluctantly or not. Doesn't mean he wants out or not.

 

(Also this sounds like the same story that was going around a couple of weeks ago).

 

Most finance deals of this nature are signed with a completion date a couple of weeks later when various conditions are satisfied e.g redemption of existing charges. It is possible that the deal was signed but with a completion condition which Gillett had to satisfy e.g. delivery of the personal guarantee he's supposed to provide.

 

So this is theoretically possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most finance deals of this nature are signed with a completion date a couple of weeks later when various conditions are satisfied e.g redemption of existing charges. It is possible that the deal was signed but with a completion condition which Gillett had to satisfy e.g. delivery of the personal guarantee he's supposed to provide.

 

So this is theoretically possible.

 

Do you think it's a realistic possibility though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ulysses Everett McGill

The above, the thing about George not yet signing the deal, was actually mentioned by someone last week, someone who would probably know.

 

Obviously things may have changed, so we'll see, but it may have some credence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's also a rumour doing the rounds that only Gillett has the option to buy Hicks, and not the other way around. If this is true it makes sense as GG would have known he had less financial clout, and was protecting his interest. It may just be wishful thinking though.

 

I think Hicks would be a crazy bastard to try and buy the other half after what has gone on. But he is Texan and GWB's mate so I wouldn't put anything past him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest World Party

I'm pretty sure the new refinancing deal would have needed the consent of both parties. Just more online gossip, which is raising false hope and not helping anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what i can gather Gillett is at his financial breaking point and cant afford no more therefore he wants out.

 

If we cant afford the payments due to not qualifying for the Champs Lge then they have to find the cash elsewhere so it is expected to come from their own pocket which isnt going to happen.

 

I honestly believe Gillett is a sound enough bloke who has just bitten off more then he can chew and was hoping we would be successful this season and that his son Foster would learn the ropes and take over as CEO with a view to eventually owning the club.

 

Foster has fucked off back to the USA because he hates it here and Gillett knows that athough in their eyes they spent a lot in the summer its going to need a huge amount spent again for us to be challengers, something they cant afford.

 

There is no way that eveything is rosy with the owners otherwise we would have had Gillett giving his views about Liverpool on TV by now and is it any surprise considering how Hicks has been carrying on these last couple of months or so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest World Party

Maybe Gillett has decided to stay out of the press on the advice of the club?

 

I just don't understand why DIC would come back and try and buy the club a year after failing to get us for the cheaper price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk of this stadium and that stadium seems irrelevant under the yanks, I have no confidence it will ever get built while they are at the club, didn't they promise to get building within 60 days?

 

Its not about choice, we've got loads of pretty designs here there and everywhere, its just about getting the fucking thing built now before it goes on any longer and if that means the parrybowl then so be it. I don't know whether DIC will turn out to be good 'custodians' of the club (starting to hate that word) but I'm pretty sure that if they want a new stadium they will get it built ,no ifs ,no buts, no excuses, it'll just get built which will help secure the clubs future for the long term regardless if we do have debt to pay back.

 

Would be ironic if in the end its a yank rather than david Moores who finally had the balls to sell out to DIC....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liverpool may be responsible for £350m debt

 

By David Bond - Telegraph

Last Updated: 11:54pm GMT 06/02/2008

 

Despite an appeal from chief executive Rick Parry for everyone associated with Liverpool to stop washing dirty linen in public, there is still great unease within the club over exactly where the liability for the new £350 million refinancing resides.

action

 

Exactly one year on from their £220 million takeover of the club, a spokesman for American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr insisted yesterday that there was no intention to load all the debts on to Liverpool's balance sheet.

 

Rick Parry: Liverpool may be responsible for the entire £350m debt

Stop clowning around: Rick Parry wants to get back to Liverpool way

 

While they have admitted the £30 million-a-year interest payments will be serviced by the club, they maintain Liverpool will be liable only for £105 million of the new loans with Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia.

 

The Americans insist a further £245 million of new borrowings taken out by parent company, Kop Football, are secured by their personal guarantees and cash.

 

But there is uncertainty within Anfield about the implications of an inter-company loan set up to ensure the interest payments can be paid by club income. Some sources believe it makes Liverpool legally responsible for the full £350 million.

 

If that is the case, then the move would seem to run contrary to a commitment given by Hicks and Gillett in their official offer document to shareholders last year.

 

At that time they said: "The payment of interest on, repayment of or security for any liability (contingent or otherwise) due under the facilities [loans] will not depend to any significant extent on the business of Liverpool."

 

If they were to go back on that commitment, the move could attract the interest of City regulator, the Takeover Panel, and embarrass Rothschilds, the bankers used by the Americans to do the deal.

 

With Liverpool's future still unclear and Dubai International Capital still trying to launch a takeover bid, Parry yesterday called for the club to pull together.

 

"This is not the Liverpool we all know and love," he said. "It has never been our style to wash our dirty linen in public. The sooner we can put all of this behind us and get back to the Liverpool way the better."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liverpool may be responsible for £350m debt

 

By David Bond - Telegraph

Last Updated: 11:54pm GMT 06/02/2008

 

Despite an appeal from chief executive Rick Parry for everyone associated with Liverpool to stop washing dirty linen in public, there is still great unease within the club over exactly where the liability for the new £350 million refinancing resides.

action

 

Exactly one year on from their £220 million takeover of the club, a spokesman for American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett Jr insisted yesterday that there was no intention to load all the debts on to Liverpool's balance sheet.

 

Rick Parry: Liverpool may be responsible for the entire £350m debt

Stop clowning around: Rick Parry wants to get back to Liverpool way

 

While they have admitted the £30 million-a-year interest payments will be serviced by the club, they maintain Liverpool will be liable only for £105 million of the new loans with Royal Bank of Scotland and Wachovia.

 

The Americans insist a further £245 million of new borrowings taken out by parent company, Kop Football, are secured by their personal guarantees and cash.

 

But there is uncertainty within Anfield about the implications of an inter-company loan set up to ensure the interest payments can be paid by club income. Some sources believe it makes Liverpool legally responsible for the full £350 million.

 

If that is the case, then the move would seem to run contrary to a commitment given by Hicks and Gillett in their official offer document to shareholders last year.

 

At that time they said: "The payment of interest on, repayment of or security for any liability (contingent or otherwise) due under the facilities [loans] will not depend to any significant extent on the business of Liverpool."

 

If they were to go back on that commitment, the move could attract the interest of City regulator, the Takeover Panel, and embarrass Rothschilds, the bankers used by the Americans to do the deal.

 

With Liverpool's future still unclear and Dubai International Capital still trying to launch a takeover bid, Parry yesterday called for the club to pull together.

 

"This is not the Liverpool we all know and love," he said. "It has never been our style to wash our dirty linen in public. The sooner we can put all of this behind us and get back to the Liverpool way the better."

 

I feel like saying "Well... Duh", but this slightly different to what we've been thinking isn't it?

 

We all knew G&H would be taking money from the club to pay the WHOLE 350M loan, but us being legally responsible is something totally different... isnt it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That sounds like its being fed from Parry or someone.

 

Has to be Parry and Moores.

 

Probably clutching at straws but if it is possible to prove that Liverpool are paying the whole £30 million a year interest on the loan then is that a breach of contract on the offer the yanks made to initially by us and if yes what are the consquences of such actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...