DIC: takeover thread

[spider-neil]

Don't patronize me, admit it, it's pure speculation on your part?

 

okay, this information comes from 99.9999999% of contracts I've seen so unless hicks and gilletts agreement falls into the 0.00000001% I'm going to assume I'm correct and their agreement is like the majority of shares drawn up, remember when people were saying gillett couldn't break up his shares, well quite clearly that isn't the case is it?

[Dirk]

Drewy the original agreement is between 2 parties. If both agree the original contract can be dissolved at any time.

 

If DIC have offered enough money, why would Gillett give power to Hicks when he doesn't like him?

[RedinSweden]

I thought that they could pretty much write their own terms and conditions for the partnership. They could write that if the other one wants to sell, he has to give the other partner a hand shandy whilst singing the hallelujah chorus. Which they may have done. Which would explain the delays. Maybe one side was unwilling.

[drewy]

Drewy the original agreement is between 2 parties. If both agree the original contract can be dissolved at any time.

 

So the original contract states they can't? But if the above happens thay can? Begs the question, what's the point of a contract/partnership?

 

Face it, we don't know either way.

[RedinSweden]

okay, this information comes from 99.9999999% of contracts I've seen so unless hicks and gilletts agreement falls into the 0.00000001% I'm going to assume I'm correct and their agreement is like the majority of shares drawn up, remember when people were saying gillett couldn't break up his shares, well quite clearly that isn't the case is it?

 

So if you are basing it on 99.9999999% and it happens in 0.00000001% of the contracts, what about the other 0.00000009%?

[spider-neil]

the only reason I can see the dic agreeing to such a deal is there must be 'some' kind of lophole if not they must be supremely confident that hicks will be in the same financial trouble this time next year.

 

also any investment made by the dic between now and when the loan is up for refinance is a gamble on their part because they don't know if they will be able to gain full control so hicks would get the benifit without spending a penny.

[Hazel Motes]

So if you are basing it on 99.9999999% and it happens in 0.00000001% of the contracts, what about the other 0.00000009%?

 

Think RiS could be onto something there

 

hope so anyway

[Tom R]

Is it just me, or is anyone else notr even reading this thread, but just flicking through it for more pictures of comedy fish?

[spider-neil]

So if you are basing it on 99.9999999% and it happens in 0.00000001% of the contracts, what about the other 0.00000009%?

 

serious question, why would they draw up contracts that differs from everyone elses?

 

first refusual - common practice

 

90 day period to match the bid - common practice

 

why on earth would everything above or beyond that be any different?

[Karl_b]

 

Is that from the next series of Grand Designs?

[dave u]

Hicks negotiated with DIC about letting them buy 15%. Surely that suggests they can sell off bits and pieces if they choose.

[spider-neil]

Hicks negotiated with DIC about letting them buy 15%. Surely that suggests they can sell off bits and pieces if they choose.

 

forgot about that.:whistle:

[drewy]

Hicks negotiated with DIC about letting them buy 15%. Surely that suggests they can sell off bits and pieces if they choose.

 

Hicks and Gillette wasn't it, at that time?

 

Anyway I think the point we are all discussing hinges on whether Gillette/Hicks manage to move things forward on a level that is agreeable to the three parties, rather than things being done in a hostile way ie 90 day rule etc.

[Anny Road]

So the original contract states they can't? But if the above happens thay can? Begs the question, what's the point of a contract/partnership?

 

Face it, we don't know either way.

 

The point is it stops one partner from doing stuff without the other agreement.

As for the proposed 15% sell off last year I would imagine GG would have been all for it as it would have given him a majority stake.

[spider-neil]

Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum

Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum

Tick, tick Hick's goes boom

[Hazel Motes]

Hicks negotiated with DIC about letting them buy 15%. Surely that suggests they can sell off bits and pieces if they choose.

 

Hey, still no clip from yesterday? The mad david usher wrecked to bits in liverpool youtube piece won't do, you know.

[spider-neil]

I don't like hicks but you have to admit the guy has balls, seriously, he is turning down a 40% profit PLUS an extra potential 40% from future liverpool success without doing any work (and with no risk as the dic would pay up the loan) and all this after just one year.

[dave u]

Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum

Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum

Tick, tick Hick's goes boom

 

Class. Can't beat a bit of the Fresh Prince.

[Rafa Shankly]

Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum

Boom boom Sheikh Sheikh Makhtoum

Tick, tick Hick's goes boom

whether they take over or not that has to be sang at the games.:lol:

[EmilHamilton]

Tom Hicks may win battle over Liverpool

 

Mar 7 2008 by Tony Barrett, Liverpool Echo

 

TOM HICKS was today edging closer to taking majority control of Liverpool.

 

DIC has indicated it may now be willing to take a 49% stake by buying out all but 1% of George Gillett's shares.

 

The remaining 1% could then be bought by Hicks, leaving him as the majority shareholder - a scenario one Anfield figure has described as "a potential nightmare".

 

It is believed DIC has not dropped its desire to buy the club outright in the future but for the time being may be ready to enter into a deal which would see Hicks investment increase.

 

The situation is further complicated by the fact Liverpool's current co-owners are speaking to DIC separately and even though Hicks is now believed to have indicated he will not block DIC in their bid to take a minority stake, the Dubai consortium would still have to convince Gillett to accept its offer.

 

Gillett is still to agree to sell though and having fallen out so dramatically with Hicks it remains questionable whether he would be willing to do any deal with him.

 

The Hicks camp remain insistent that although they are aware DIC has indicated a change of stance, they have not yet received any formal notification from them regarding this.

 

But the two parties could meet in Dubai next week.

 

The current situation will further dismay and confuse Liverpool fans who are seeing a complex deal for the future of their club being played out via the media on an almost hourly basis.

 

Paul Lunt, a litigation partner at Liverpool law firm Brabners who specialises in shareholders rights, said: "The impasse highlights the unattractiveness of being a minority shareholder.

 

"Tom Hicks and DIC have been in talks about the future ownership and control of Liverpool , and it seems both are willing to consider the possibility of some future role for the other.

 

"The sticking point seems to be the fact that neither party is willing to accept a role as a minority shareholder; each of them will only consider a controlling stake.

 

"This is not surprising. The strict rights of a shareholder holding less than 50% of the shares in a private limited company are generally fairly limited.

 

Meanwhile, on the pitch, Javier Mascherano is a doubt for the game against Newcastle tomorrow having picked up a dead leg in the4-0 win over West Ham.

 

Oh well. If the Arabs can wipe our debt and Hicks can build our stadium, personally I don't care.

[spider-neil]

Oh well. If the Arabs can wipe our debt and Hicks can build our stadium, personally I don't care.

 

they would wipe out half the debt (gillett's half) at least that means we have to service 15M in interest payments. we could handle that.

[Victor Ganges]

The point is it stops one partner from doing stuff without the other agreement.

It looked pink, though she said it was brown. I was drunk however.

[Carra_is_legend]

they would wipe out half the debt (gillett's half) at least that means we have to service 15M in interest payments. we could handle that.

 

It won't make any fuckin difference. Hicks will need to take dividends out to pay his part of the interest. Even if DIC wipe out the debt by paying cash, Hicks will still have to distribute the same amount of dividends (ok...49% equivalent) to DIC.

[RedinSweden]

Oh well. If the Arabs can wipe our debt and Hicks can build our stadium, personally I don't care.

 

I give that news

 

[EmilHamilton]

If Hicks was wealthy cash wise I think he'd be the perfect person for us. He's determined, he's got the drive, and he wants to succeed, but he's got no money of his own. If he had that we'd be set.

 

Well I guess that's why he's trying to get Dubai in as a minority shareholder.

 

The thing is with the influence even a 49% shareholder wields in the next refinancing, I suspect Hicks' number will be up unless he can operate forward without loans.