DIC: takeover thread

[JoeyKop]

Correct me if im wrong but whats the deal is former Presidents of America. I thought they could not enter business ventures after leaving the Whitehouse or have i got the wrong end of the stick there.

 

they can't that's why this story is so funny.

[JoeyKop]

let this Dic. gillete, hicks thing play out in the next month. you'll see some movement.

[Carra_is_legend]

£300m naming rights my arse!

 

If there was anyone willing to pay that kind of money, Glazers would have got hold of them long time ago.

 

I really believe Arsenal's deal was just a one off. Can't see anyone paying that kind of money for any stadium.

[Code]

£300m naming rights my arse!

 

If there was anyone willing to pay that kind of money, Glazers would have got hold of them long time ago.

 

I really believe Arsenal's deal was just a one off. Can't see anyone paying that kind of money for any stadium.

 

The GBJ Stadium it is then.

[zigackly]

Arsenal did NOT get £100M for naming rights. The £100M, off the top of my head, was split something like £40M for naming rights and £60M for a ten year shirt deal.

[StevieH]

Arsenal-Emirates deal worth £100m | Media | MediaGuardian

 

Arsenal today unveiled a £100m sponsorship deal with Emirates just days after Chelsea claimed it had chosen not to extend its contract with the Arab airline.

 

Under the deal, Emirates will get shirt sponsorship and have the club's brand new ground named after it until at least 2021.

 

The club's new stadium in Finsbury Park in north London, scheduled to be ready by the time the 2006/07 season kicks off, will be known as the Emirates Stadium for its first 15 years.

 

Under the terms of the record-breaking deal, which is likely to be worth at least £100m to the club over the length of the contract, Emirates will take over as shirt sponsors once the north London club's existing deal runs out at the end of the 2005/06 season.

 

"The combined value of both elements of the sponsorship is by far the biggest deal ever undertaken in English football," the club said in a statement.

 

The Arsenal contract was signed at Highbury by club chairman Peter Hill-Wood and Maurice Flanagan, the Emirates vice president and group president.

 

"This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sponsor such a major new stadium and club, and represents a win-win partnership for both Emirates and Arsenal," said Sheikh Ahmed bin Saeed al-Maktoum, the billionaire chairman of Emirates.

 

The airline currently sponsors Arsenal's Premiership rival Chelsea, which announced last week it was dropping the company at the end of this season in order to concentrate on securing a brand that better fitted with its global ambitions.

 

However, that move now looks like a case of the west London club getting its PR retaliation in first, having been informed by the airline of its intention to sign a major deal with its rivals.

 

But it remains to be seen whether fans of the north London club can be persuaded to refer to the ground, currently known as Ashburton Grove, as the Emirates Stadium.

 

The concept of a sponsor being given naming rights to a stadium is fairly new to the UK but has been common practice in the US for some time, with companies paying up to £9m a year to have baseball and American football stadiums named after them.

 

Arsenal director Keith Edelman said earlier this year the club would be interested in finding a partner to sponsor the name of the ground if they offered a suitably high sum.

 

"It obviously depends on the level of sponsorship that someone comes up and offers us," said Mr Edelman. "But it is also linked to whether we feel the sponsor is appropriate to be associated with the club.

 

"No one in the UK has ever got substantial amounts; maybe less than £1m or possibly £200,000 a year. But it all depends on the level of interest that you get."

 

First stadium sponsor was frozen chips firm

 

Improbably, the first ground in the UK to be named after its sponsor was Scarborough's stadium, which was named after the frozen chips company McCain's, while Bolton Wanderers' new ground was christened the Reebok Stadium when it opened its gates in 1997.

 

Wigan's JJB Stadium houses the city's football club and rugby league team, and is named after the sports retail chain.

 

Arsenal secured the £357m needed to build the 60,000-seater stadium back in February, and the increased capacity of the ground is seen as vital in boosting revenues to the levels required to compete financially with Manchester United and Chelsea.

 

The club said today the revenues from the Emirates deal, which are weighted towards the earlier years of the contract, would give it the financial muscle to meet loan repayments on the new ground as well as compete in the transfer market.

 

Today's announcement could undermine Arsenal's current £6m a year shirt deal with mobile phone network O2, which only recently renewed its sponsorship for another two years.

 

But the club said today it remained committed to working with O2 and that the end of next season, the last at current home Highbury, would provide a natural punctuation mark.

 

Its added that its Arsenal Mobile joint venture, which provides fans with news, updates, video and pictures, was likely to continue beyond the end of the current deal.

 

Emirates has sponsored Chelsea for the last three years but the club announced last week it would terminate the contract at the end of this season.

 

The club has already begun the search for a new shirt sponsor, with mobile phone group Orange among the favourites despite denying last week it had already begun talks.

 

Other mobile phone brands sponsor top football clubs, with Vodafone paying Manchester United £9m a season for its logo to appear on the club shirts.

 

Another likely partner is a big financial institution. Spanish bank Banco Santander, currently in the middle of an £8.6bn takeover of Abbey, is believed to be looking for sponsorship opportunities in the UK. Juan Inciarte, the Santander banker leading the Abbey bid, last week attended Chelsea's Champions League match with Porto.

[JoeyKop]

Benitez left in limbo after Gillett's oversight extends Liverpool turmoil

 

By Ian Herbert

Wednesday, 14 May 2008

 

Emphasising his dismay at a season without silverware, Steven Gerrard yesterday passed up the opportunity to say he sees himself finishing his career at Anfield. However, the Liverpool captain will be saddened to learn that his manager's hopes of a speedy resolution to the club's boardroom strife appear to have been dashed.

 

Aware he will have to sell before buying new players this summer, Rafael Benitez expressed his wish last week for a quick end to the struggle for ownership which is limiting the funds at his disposal. But Dubai International Capital (DIC), the Arab consortium seeking a buy-out at Anfield, is now resigned to the fact that Tom Hicks may still be at the helm, come August.

 

There had been hopes that the expiry of pre-emption rights this month would allow Hicks' co-owner George Gillett to sell his shares to DIC. But an administrative oversight on Gillett's part appears to have prevented that, so DIC is now dependent on Hicks – or his bankers – reaching the conclusion that he has no option but to sell to them.

 

There is a belief in the DIC camp that Hicks' bankers might ultimately force his hand, though when that might happen is unclear. DIC may have to wait until October, the date Hicks has promised that construction work will begin on Liverpool's new 60,000-seat stadium and which is the acid test of his ability to deliver what he has promised for the club.

 

Hicks is close to borrowed time where his side's players are concerned. Another season without a trophy threatens an exodus and Liverpool's former defender Mark Lawrenson fears the loss of Gerrard if there is no sense of the club advancing any time soon.

 

"He [Gerrard] says he wants to stay and can't see himself leaving but would anyone blame him if he felt he was better off out of it?" Lawrenson said yesterday. "That might not seem too much of a problem just now. But if Jose Mourinho takes over at Inter Milan and tells the chairman to get Gerrard for him at all costs, it might just become one."

 

Gerrard, who needs no reminding that Manchester United now stand only one title away from Liverpool's record of 18, considers it imperative that the club invest seriously this summer. "Other teams are going to strengthen, so it's important we do the same," he said yesterday. "There is a lot of money in the League. To keep doing well in the League and Europe we need to strengthen the squad." Gerrard appeared less than bullish about his side's chances of mounting a title challenge next season. "Obviously I have to be careful that I don't send expectations through the roof again, but I am desperate for [a title]. We need new players, and the manager needs help from the board to make these signings happen. I do expect us to be involved next season."

 

On reports that a player who was so nearly tempted to join Chelsea in 2005, might see out his career at Anfield, he said: "I'm happy. I am enjoying my football. Obviously I am not happy ending the season without a trophy."

 

Stadium investment will need to begin any time now, with the hiring of surveyors and contractors and if construction work does not get under way in the autumn Hicks will find himself under huge pressure from Liverpool fans.

 

He remains upbeat about his prospects and has promised that work on the new stadium in Stanley Park will will start in September, with construction to begin in October and the stadium due to be open for matches in 2011. But Hicks' confidence flies in the face of the credit crunch, which has left Tottenham to consider modifying plans to redevelop White Hart Lane.

 

Benitez left in limbo after Gillett's oversight extends Liverpool turmoil - Premier League, Football - The Independent

[Falla]

Quite possibly the worst article I've ever read.

[OnizukaEikichi]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[lfc4eva99]

Was just watching BBC WORLD NEWS and they had a report on JP MORGAN letting about 4000 jobs go mainly due to the fucked up economy and credit crunch...

 

They were reported to be involved with Hicks, surely theyd want their money back knowing the amount of risk involved in this transaction, or do they have to wait till the refinancing date looms before they can wield the axe on Hicks... or can they do that at all?

[Alias75]

The below is describing a worst case scenario:

 

I have touched upon the issue USA vs a muslim country earlier, or one of Bush`s mates losing out to the ruler of Dubai as something I could see becoming a problem for the Christian extremists surrounding Bush and his goverment.

 

I could easily see them backing Hicks so he wont lose this battle and they will save face.

 

Do you know the business interests the Bush family has with the Saudi's?

[Alias75]

Was just watching BBC WORLD NEWS and they had a report on JP MORGAN letting about 4000 jobs go mainly due to the fucked up economy and credit crunch...

 

They were reported to be involved with Hicks, surely theyd want their money back knowing the amount of risk involved in this transaction, or do they have to wait till the refinancing date looms before they can wield the axe on Hicks... or can they do that at all?

 

They can certainly put pressure on him to sell but i dont think they can force anything until refinancing is due. However if Hicks is struggling to find any investment he'd be stupid to let it get that far because he would lose any bargaining power he had. If it gets to the stage where refinancing is due and he can't find anyone to lend him more money he'd have no option but to sell meaning DIC could buy for a lower price.

 

But right now he owes a lot of money at a time when banks are getting very nervous, the people that have lent him the money know a buyer is there waiting so they can see their return there on the horizon, so im sure if they think theres any chance he won't be able to pay them back or if they think hes no longer a safe person to loan money too they'll put a lot of pressure on him to sell up.

[WaltonRed]

!st off Lawro can go fuck himself.

 

According to the article Hicks is going to sell the naming rights for the Stadium for £300 million.

 

That would be one hell of a deal as Arsenal got £100 million for theres. How long is the naming rights for then til the next millenium.

 

We should be looking at getting more than Arsenal, if we do get that much it'll make the whole thing even worse because Parry and Moores could of just done that in the 1st place but then we know that already.

 

Do you know the business interests the Bush family has with the Saudi's?

 

Spot on, they are in each other's pockets.

[Carra_is_legend]

They can certainly put pressure on him to sell but i dont think they can force anything until refinancing is due. However if Hicks is struggling to find any investment he'd be stupid to let it get that far because he would lose any bargaining power he had. If it gets to the stage where refinancing is due and he can't find anyone to lend him more money he'd have no option but to sell meaning DIC could buy for a lower price.

 

But right now he owes a lot of money at a time when banks are getting very nervous, the people that have lent him the money know a buyer is there waiting so they can see their return there on the horizon, so im sure if they think theres any chance he won't be able to pay them back or if they think hes no longer a safe person to loan money too they'll put a lot of pressure on him to sell up.

 

Seriously, why would the bank put pressure on Hicks and recall the loan? I know there is a credit crunch and financial crisis and all that but the banks need to survive this period. To survive, banks need to receive the interest payments - there is no use of getting the loan amount back and keeping the money to themselves. It is not as if the banks are not lending at all - they are just being careful about it. They just want to make sure that their money will be safe and interest payments will be met. LFC can easily afford to do that - at the expense of the fans ofcourse.

 

JP Morgan is laying people off because they are worried about their profits - they are not worried of going bankrupt!

 

It is very much like getting a mortgage mate. Banks are now asking upto £2k arrangement fee if someone wants a mortgage. But, the banks are quite happy to add that £2k fee with your loan amount - hence forcing you to repay that £2k over a period along with interest every month. It is not as if the bank is getting that £2k there and then to solve their "financial crisis" is it? Banks are all cunts. They are just using the situation to their own gain.

[WaltonRed]

If someone had something I really wanted and I had endless millions I'd just pay over the odds for said item.

 

If you want something you'll pay.

[Sinos]

Seriously, why would the bank put pressure on Hicks and recall the loan? I know there is a credit crunch and financial crisis and all that but the banks need to survive this period. To survive, banks need to receive the interest payments - there is no use of getting the loan amount back and keeping the money to themselves. It is not as if the banks are not lending at all - they are just being careful about it. They just want to make sure that their money will be safe and interest payments will be met. LFC can easily afford to do that - at the expense of the fans ofcourse.

 

JP Morgan is laying people off because they are worried about their profits - they are not worried of going bankrupt!

 

It is very much like getting a mortgage mate. Banks are now asking upto £2k arrangement fee if someone wants a mortgage. But, the banks are quite happy to add that £2k fee with your loan amount - hence forcing you to repay that £2k over a period along with interest every month. It is not as if the bank is getting that £2k there and then to solve their "financial crisis" is it? Banks are all cunts. They are just using the situation to their own gain.

 

but he WOULDN'T be going to hedge funds looking for money if the banks were willing to lend to him.

[coop]

Hicks is playing a dangerous game and if it goes wrong Liverpool FC will be the ones who pay not Tom Hicks.

[Carra_is_legend]

but he WOULDN'T be going to hedge funds looking for money if the banks were willing to lend to him.

 

May be the banks are looking for more personal guarantees?

 

Anyway, I was arguing against the suggestion that the banks might call the loans back. I was just saying there is no reason for them to do that.

[Carra_is_legend]

Hicks is playing a dangerous game and if it goes wrong Liverpool FC will be the ones who pay not Tom Hicks.

 

Even if it goes right, it will be us who pay not Tom Hicks. Increased ticket prices, corporate boxes, fans being forced to buy cup tickets, subscribe to the annual eat as much as you can Hotdogfancard etc.

 

Hicks won't give a fuck about us.

[coop]

Hicks is playing a dangerous game because if the figures he is projecting dont work then its Liverpool that will suffer.

 

The discussions between George Gillett and Dubai Holdings differ greatly then what that person who posted the article on RAWK said.

[Carra_is_legend]

Hicks is playing a dangerous game because if the figures he is projecting dont work then its Liverpool that will suffer.

 

Depends on how you look at it. If he builds that stadium, we will be competitive and as long as we are competitive, he will get the figures. Utd's model is the same - in fact, it looks dangerous. Some of the loans Glazers have borrowed are at 14.25%. Still, they are meeting the interest payments quite comfortably AND spending huge money on transfers AND making money for themselves. If Hicks/Rafa can make sure we are in top 4 until the stadium gets built, I think that will do for Hicks.

 

The discussions between George Gillett and Dubai Holdings differ greatly then what that person who posted the article on RAWK said.

 

Heard anything then coop?

[bigal]

Hicks is playing a dangerous game because if the figures he is projecting dont work then its Liverpool that will suffer.

 

The discussions between George Gillett and Dubai Holdings differ greatly then what that person who posted the article on RAWK said.

 

in what way Coop?

[coop]

As regards what discussions took place between Gillett and Dubai Holdings then i dont know what the outcome of the talks were but only a very select few will know so there would be hell to pay if information from that meeting was released.

 

Anything is possible in the world of finance and its feasible what that article from RAWK could be true as regards what Hicks is planning to do but one thing i do know is if Hicks does go ahead with his plan and get the money then we had better hope we qualify for the Champions League every season because room for error is not an option.

 

Everyone who Tom Hicks has approached have so far refused to back him which should give you an indication of what other people in the financial world think of his idea.

[Kennys_spell]

May be the banks are looking for more personal guarantees?

 

Anyway, I was arguing against the suggestion that the banks might call the loans back. I was just saying there is no reason for them to do that.

 

Am I wrong here or isn't all this 'Hedge fund begging' pointless if the board stand against him and refuse to allow him to load the borrowing against the club. The board have a clear majority of 4 - 2, with Gillett claiming he'll 'never sell to Hicks'.

 

Let him go and put himself deeper and deeper into debt. (6)(6)

[Bernard Diomede]

I'm confused, if god forbid Hicks should get the financing in place gillette still has the power to tell him to swivel doesn't he?theirs nothing written to say gillette has to accept his bid is their?