Dubai and Liverpool FC

[Cath]

UEMcG that is soo what I wanted to hear.

 

The figures being thrown around tonight are scary. It's Billionaires' Championship Mansger.

[DomL]

He was spot on with his info regarding the sale of the club to H&G

 

Yep that is very true he seems to have been correct on what he has said on this thats for shore, he was allways saying that they wouldnt take us over when cowntown said they would and they didnt so i magine he had good info.

 

As for his transfers he has never really been proved right or wrong allthough he was perfect about the masch and babel trasnfers

[hamstrung]

Shankslegend posted this on RAWK

 

Potential takeover news

 

Great news but for the fact the opposite of what he says, tends to happen.

Edited September 1, 2008 by hamstrung

[coop]

Tom Hicks would have sold months ago if DIC had made him an offer that he valued the club at also Dubai never left and the offer is on table for the owners to decide what to do.

 

The reality is Tom Hicks has probably realised that they are up shit creek especially with rumours of bankruptcy around corner.

[Sangria]

Great news but for the fact the opposite of what he says, tends to happen.

 

I think he is reliable and usually very close to the mark. He did say we were signing Barry but I think even Rafa thought we were at the time.

[coop]

I dont know ShanksLegend but i do know about Elisha Scott and both were saying the same thing a few months ago and that was the owners were selling.

 

The problem is depending on whom you talk to regards the takeoever they will give you different replies.

 

Just because the takeover did not happen last time does not mean these people are unreliable its just the differing stories.

[hamstrung]

I think he is reliable and usually very close to the mark. He did say we were signing Barry but I think even Rafa thought we were at the time.

 

I don't go on rawk, but of the bits that end up on here I don't recall anything that has actually happened.

[Guest Kenny]

Shankslegend, the man who said we were back in for Barry then a day later o`neil said he hasnt heard back from Liverpool.

[MLB]

From what people have reported on here about Shankslegend's predictions I wouldn't trust him as far as I can shit.

[Guest davelfc]

Personally I dont think the deal is on the table anymore not since Man City did their deal. Its only my opinion but I dont see two Dubai companies competing with each other in the PL. They dont tend to compete with each other in other business activities so I cant see the point of having 2 Dubai owned PL teams.

 

Lets see what happens but I am very depressed

 

Thanks for the thread starter trying to cheer me up but I just dont see it hapenning

 

Since the country's creation in 1971 - a move driven by Sheikh Khalifa's father, the revered late Sheikh Zayed - Dubai and Abu Dhabi have competed against each other for the world's affections, a rivalry that has gone into overdrive since the turn of the century.

 

When Dubai built its own seven-star hotel, the Burj Al Arab, Abu Dhabi responded with its own, the Emirates Palace. When Dubai embarked on huge, glamorous construction projects that stole headlines across the world, Abu Dhabi followed suit with plans to build a Guggenheim and a Louvre.

 

Even sporting events have witnessed this economic one-upmanship, with Abu Dhabi setting up a rival to Dubai's PGA tour golf event and tennis tournament. From the outside, it appeared that Abu Dhabi resented the success of its glamorous neighbour. Dubai's royal family had been so successful in branding the emirate that many assumed that it, and not Abu Dhabi, was the capital of the UAE.

 

So when DIC, itself an investment arm of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum's sovereign fund, tried and failed to buy a Premier League club, Abu Dhabi just had to keep up with the Joneses. Well, the Maktoums.

 

Manchester City's new owners put national pride before profit | Sport | guardian.co.uk

[andyj]

It is HSBC that DIC are involved in mate but they also have a lot of power wthin the finance world due to their portfolio.

 

I would imagine a bank like RBS would rather have Dubai Holding/DIC on their side then against them especially against a high risk duo like Hicks and Gilett.

cheers coop

yeah agree with you there mate lets hope they use there influence in the money world when the refinancing comes round. But i think with the new ground grinding to a halt H+G will have a hard time refinancing without anyone leaning on then

[Hazel Motes]

Since the country's creation in 1971 - a move driven by Sheikh Khalifa's father, the revered late Sheikh Zayed - Dubai and Abu Dhabi have competed against each other for the world's affections, a rivalry that has gone into overdrive since the turn of the century.

 

When Dubai built its own seven-star hotel, the Burj Al Arab, Abu Dhabi responded with its own, the Emirates Palace. When Dubai embarked on huge, glamorous construction projects that stole headlines across the world, Abu Dhabi followed suit with plans to build a Guggenheim and a Louvre.

 

Even sporting events have witnessed this economic one-upmanship, with Abu Dhabi setting up a rival to Dubai's PGA tour golf event and tennis tournament. From the outside, it appeared that Abu Dhabi resented the success of its glamorous neighbour. Dubai's royal family had been so successful in branding the emirate that many assumed that it, and not Abu Dhabi, was the capital of the UAE.

 

So when DIC, itself an investment arm of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum's sovereign fund, tried and failed to buy a Premier League club, Abu Dhabi just had to keep up with the Joneses. Well, the Maktoums.

 

Manchester City's new owners put national pride before profit | Sport | guardian.co.uk

 

 

Yeah, Waddaya say now Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, can't buy a club eeh? Eeeh? Not rich enough?

[Royal Family]

Shankslegend - as reliable as condom made in a porcupine factory. i think he's actually a precocious 6 year-old kid.

 

And how strange - if predictable - that he posts today, only after a thread appears on TLW from people with genuine contacts.

[WaltonRed]

If Dubai and Abu-Dhabi are in competition I think buying one of THE biggest clubs in the world would top buying Manchester City.

[Barrington Womble]

Tom Hicks would have sold months ago if DIC had made him an offer that he valued the club at also Dubai never left and the offer is on table for the owners to decide what to do.

 

The reality is Tom Hicks has probably realised that they are up shit creek especially with rumours of bankruptcy around corner.

 

Is it true LFC is his only real asset? I heard all his debts for his US investments outweigh the actual share price at the moment and he is pretty fucked and under pressure from banks in the states (Morgan Stanley I think) to sell up with LFC now.

[redrosetints]

Yeah, Waddaya say now Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, can't buy a club eeh? Eeeh? Not rich enough?

 

Eh eh Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, yer mate in Abu Dhabi has a permier league club...

 

Whatyagonnado ?

[coop]

Is it true LFC is his only real asset? I heard all his debts for his US investments outweigh the actual share price at the moment and he is pretty fucked and under pressure from banks in the states (Morgan Stanley I think) to sell up with LFC now.

 

Sounds about right that.

 

Hicks has been advised a long time ago to sell Liverpool but he is stubborn and does not want to appear to have failed and bullied into selling. He likes to be the one calling the shots not someone else.

 

Whilst the 'credit crunch' has been bad for many it seems to have actually done Liverpool FC a favour otherwise we would be far more in debt then we currently are.

[Sangria]

I don't go on rawk, but of the bits that end up on here I don't recall anything that has actually happened.

 

I seem to be in the minority as regards his info, as most are saying he is full of it.

 

My view unless someone is a complete wind up merchant then it is good to hear from those in the know. The problem with info is it changes day and daily and no one can get it right all the time.

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Whilst the 'credit crunch' has been bad for many it seems to have actually done Liverpool FC a favour otherwise we would be far more in debt then we currently are.

 

We can thank brave DM for that, he begged Hicks to not put all the loan onto the club afterall :whistle:

[Sangria]

Is it true LFC is his only real asset? I heard all his debts for his US investments outweigh the actual share price at the moment and he is pretty fucked and under pressure from banks in the states (Morgan Stanley I think) to sell up with LFC now.

 

I never really like to hear of people going bad but there are exceptions to the rule and fat bollocks is one of those exceptions.

 

I do not want to get my hopes up but just maybe they are heading for the exit door.

[coop]

We can thank brave DM for that, he begged Hicks to not put all the loan onto the club afterall :whistle:

 

A clause was written in the take over contract that all the board had to agree to the debt been placed on the club hence when Hicks tried to do this and failed he come out with the statement about 'shooting his lawyer'.

[ratcatcher]

I get more and more depressed annd pissed off everytime I read a thread like this.

 

Can you be more gutted than gutted?

 

These 2 will just hang on until the very bitter end. I dont think they have any intention of selling without taking a big fat profit. Sleazey people always manage to find a way and even when the loans are called in, they'll find a way to re finance. Either that or we'll be in such a rag arsed state, no one will pump the kind of money we'll need into us.

[Scott_M]

[YOUTUBE]qlH0Zd2RLIE[/YOUTUBE]

[Carra_is_legend]

A clause was written in the take over contract that all the board had to agree to the debt been placed on the club hence when Hicks tried to do this and failed he come out with the statement about 'shooting his lawyer'.

 

So, Hicks didn't put the clause in. And I'm sure Gillett didn't either - he is not stupid enough to do that.

 

That leaves us with Mr. Moores. He must have been the one who put that clause in. Assuming Gillett and Hicks promised (aka lied) to him that no debt will be placed on the club (as they led us believe in the press conference) and being the stupid man that he is (taking Gillett's word for Hicks and not actually bothering to check his past record), why did he put that clause in? And why only "not all the debt should be placed on the club" instead of "no debt should be placed on the club"?

 

There are people who think Moores is basically stupid and they don't want to question his intentions. We all know Hicks and Gillett are liars but I seriouly doubt Moores' intentions when he sold the club. He MUST have known that the americans are going to put a huge debt on the club. Otherwise, there was just no need to put that clause in. After all he "took their words". Parry might have insisted on the clause but I doubt it.

[Barrington Womble]

So, Hicks didn't put the clause in. And I'm sure Gillett didn't either - he is not stupid enough to do that.

 

That leaves us with Mr. Moores. He must have been the one who put that clause in. Assuming Gillett and Hicks promised (aka lied) to him that no debt will be placed on the club (as they led us believe in the press conference) and being the stupid man that he is (taking Gillett's word for Hicks and not actually bothering to check his past record), why did he put that clause in? And why only "not all the debt should be placed on the club" instead of "no debt should be placed on the club"?

 

There are people who think Moores is basically stupid and they don't want to question his intentions. We all know Hicks and Gillett are liars but I seriouly doubt Moores' intentions when he sold the club. He MUST have known that the americans are going to put a huge debt on the club. Otherwise, there was just no need to put that clause in. After all he "took their words". Parry might have insisted on the clause but I doubt it.

 

The way I understood it is he couldn't demand that. All he could demand was that any debt taken to buy the club would not be placed against the club - so that is why there is £200m+ against kop holdings or whatever the parent company is called and the rest on LFC itself.