Tony Barret: Hicks looking for 25% stake for 100million

[Randy Marsh]

Tom Hicks starts to intensify search for Liverpool investors in Middle East | Liverpool - Times Online

 

Tom Hicks starts to intensify search for Liverpool investors in Middle East

Tony Barrett

 

 

Financiers acting on behalf of Tom Hicks, the Liverpool co-owner, have offered a minority stake in the club to potential investors in the Middle East.

 

Merrill Lynch, the investment bank, has been instructed by Hicks, who is recovering from a hip operation, to open and conduct negotiations with interested parties with a view to selling a 25 per cent share in the club at a price of £100 million as Liverpool continue attempts to reduce their levels of debt.

 

Although wealthy individuals and organisations in the Middle East have been sounded out about the possibility of buying into Liverpool, none have indicated that they would be willing to enter into what would become a three-way shared ownership venture featuring Hicks, George Gillett Jr, his co-owner, and a third party.

 

Liverpool will require substantial success at home and abroad if they are to realise the full potential of their lucrative new sponsorship deal with Standard Chartered, the London-based international bank.

 

Under the terms of the agreement, Liverpool have the potential to earn £80 million over the course of the four-year deal, which begins next July. But The Times understands that a significant element of the deal is performance-related with bonuses to be paid out to the club should they win either the Barclays Premier League or the Champions League.

 

Liverpool’s annual income from Standard Chartered is not dependent on qualification for the Champions League, but only by being in that competition will they stand a chance of receiving the full £20 million a season on offer.

 

Standard Chartered is delighted with its newly forged association with Liverpool. It believes that paying to have its brand name displayed on the shirts of Britain’s most successful club is a wise investment, particularly given the international television exposure afforded to Liverpool.

 

“Given how popular football is in Asia, Africa and the Middle East, where most of our business is, and Liverpool’s brand and huge fan base there, this is a great deal for both of us and a cost-effective way to raise our name recognition and drive growth,” the bank said. “We can’t wait to have Standard Chartered on the millions of Liverpool shirts sold every year.”

[philyhamann]

I hope his hip operation was botched and he dies

[Chinandeler Bong]

And the hits just keep on coming.

[The Tott]

Mudhish

[Hermes]

This isn't news. The story about wanting to sell part of his stake was broken months ago.

[Chinandeler Bong]

This isn't news. The story about wanting to sell part of his stake was broken months ago.

 

Very true. ML have been actively seeking investment for months now.

Just aint gonna happen .

[Trumo]

So, 25% is worth £100m now. To think this is what Sheikh Mo was looking to offer for the entire club not so long ago. Either the article is clutching at straws or the power games are beginning again.

[Randy Marsh]

I trust the article 100% as it's Barret who's written it.

[Hermes]

So, 25% is worth £100m now. To think this is what Sheikh Mo was looking to offer for the entire club not so long ago. Either the article is clutching at straws or the power games are beginning again.

 

Have you heard the term "credit crunch"?

 

It's been in all of the newspapers.

[Guest simon]

[Dan Vito Corleone]

Either Meryll Lynch are shit at what they do, or people find the valuation of the club unrealistic. What's it to be?

[G Richards]

Won't happen. Any serious investor will want majority stake with these two clowns, if not the whole thing.

[god knows]

"SICK HICKS IN HIP OP RAP HOPE""

[Randy Marsh]

I'd take anyone in, even at a minority state. Someone else having an input has to be better than these twats, and also anyone investing at a minority would presumabely have the ultimate goal of full ownership.

[The Dude Abides]

That's quite a drop in valuation compared to when they were apparently looking to sell 10% for £100m was it?

 

I was always kind of under the impression that Gillett was the keener one to get out, but because he couldn't sell his share(who would want 50%), and Hicks vetoing any sale?

 

Ah i don't know, this shit seems to be constantly ongoing with no real end in sight.

 

Wasn't there a rumour a while back that Gillet was selling, and Hicks would be selling off half of his? Kind of ties in with this?

 

 

I know thye are cunts. But they seem to be doing a decent job of running the club? You know, if it weren't for the huge debts.

[Guest Ulysses Everett McGill]

That's quite a drop in valuation compared to when they were apparently looking to sell 10% for £100m was it?

 

I was always kind of under the impression that Gillett was the keener one to get out, but because he couldn't sell his share(who would want 50%), and Hicks vetoing any sale?

 

Ah i don't know, this shit seems to be constantly ongoing with no real end in sight.

 

Wasn't there a rumour a while back that Gillet was selling, and Hicks would be selling off half of his? Kind of ties in with this?

 

 

I know thye are cunts. But they seem to be doing a decent job of running the club? You know, if it weren't for the huge debts.

 

One good sponsorship deal does not a decent ownership make

 

In context, it would take about 14 of these deals on a similar level to take the club the level of debt back to what it was before they took over

[Sangria]

That's quite a drop in valuation compared to when they were apparently looking to sell 10% for £100m was it?

 

I was always kind of under the impression that Gillett was the keener one to get out, but because he couldn't sell his share(who would want 50%), and Hicks vetoing any sale?

 

Ah i don't know, this shit seems to be constantly ongoing with no real end in sight.

 

Wasn't there a rumour a while back that Gillet was selling, and Hicks would be selling off half of his? Kind of ties in with this?

 

 

I know thye are cunts. But they seem to be doing a decent job of running the club? You know, if it weren't for the huge debts.

 

 

 

That is all we need to keep in our minds, all the good deals in the world are shit as all it does is help pay off our debt.

This is debt we did not have before the takeover. So this deal means little to me - good as it is - because it just goes on interest payments.

 

Lying cunts.

[TommyW]

Having two owners has worked out quite well, how can having three different opinions hurt?

 

Twats

[coop]

If the owners value 25% at £100m this does not mean 100% would cost £400.

 

They would only be selling a minority stake but if they were offering 60% they could value that at £400m because it would give the buyer a majority share.

[Carra_is_legend]

If the owners value 25% at £100m this does not mean 100% would cost £400.

 

They would only be selling a minority stake but if they were offering 60% they could value that at £400m because it would give the buyer a majority share.

 

They can only expect buyers to pay what the club is worth - majority stake or not.

 

If they value 25% at £100m and if they expect £400m for the remaining 75% or 60% next month, that won't happen as the club's worth wouldn't have increased a great deal in a month.

 

I think their idea might be to sell 25% for £100m now, get the stadium built, value the club at £800m so they walk away with a cool £600m for their 75%.

[Trumo]

Have you heard the term "credit crunch"?

 

It's been in all of the newspapers.

 

 

Thank you for that, Mr Chancellor.

 

My point is the unrealistic value G&H put on the club (they offered to sell a15% stake for £150m several months after the credit crunch hit), so the credit crunch itself had no bearing on their value of the club.

 

I don't read the newspapers.

[redrosetints]

One good sponsorship deal does not a decent ownership make

 

In context, it would take about 14 of these deals on a similar level to take the club the level of debt back to what it was before they took over

 

Aye, whatever good they do and even if they pay off the debt incurred in purchase, its still 180m or so that could have gone to the stadium and or new players.

 

Its just shows how poor Parry and Moores were, not only did they seriously unvalue the club and sell it to the wrong people, but had they the business nouse and intelligence, they could have done all of this themselves, without selling off the club and pluning it into record debts.

 

Given the size of the SC deal, and Arsenals emirates deal, I still think the best way to raise monies toward a new stadium is naming rights. Im sure in the current climate we could expect to get over 100m for a 10yr deal.

[SpeedyG]

Aye, whatever good they do and even if they pay off the debt incurred in purchase, its still 180m or so that could have gone to the stadium and or new players.

 

Its just shows how poor Parry and Moores were, not only did they seriously unvalue the club, but had they the nouse and intelligence, they could have done all of this themselves, without selling off the club.

 

The worst thing of all is that we're giving them 40m in interest a year plus whatever they make on the sale so that they could drag two guys off of the Kop to run us like a business. :no

[Hermes]

I hope his hip operation was botched and he dies

 

Tom should realise by now that he will never, ever be hip.

[BRANDS]

Put his hip out fucking us over!