Liverpool FC Forum

by **kunilson** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:33 pm

i was just about to do that too lol. deja vu kicked in....

but yeah this situation sucks. either hicks refinances or DIC may get a look in.....so gillette is stuck with them as half or part owners, which means there is conflict at the very top of our club from the get-go. sound about right?

by **account deleted by request** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:43 pm

kunilson wrote:i was just about to do that too lol. deja vu kicked in....

but yeah this situation sucks. either hicks refinances or DIC may get a look in.....so gillette is stuck with them as half or part owners, which means there is conflict at the very top of our club from the get-go. sound about right?

I dont think it CAN work like that mate, THE ORIGINAL agreement stated no consortiums, DIC got round this by saying that they had one head and would retain the majority vote, even if there where other parties involved. Gillette and Hicks(after he was brought in ) actually broke this agreement but as there was only two (joint heads)they were allowed to proceed.

DIC + Gillett would again be a joint consortium so I presume that DIC or Gillett would have to take 51% of the shares?

Thats my understanding of it but I am probably way off.

by **kunilson** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 6:56 pm

s@int wrote:
kunilson wrote:i was just about to do that too lol. deja vu kicked in....

but yeah this situation sucks. either hicks refinances or DIC may get a look in.....so gillette is stuck with them as half or part owners, which means there is conflict at the very top of our club from the get-go. sound about right?

I dont think it CAN work like that mate, THE ORIGINAL agreement stated no consortiums, DIC got round this by saying that they had one head and would retain the majority vote, even if there where other parties involved. Gillette and Hicks(after he was brought in ) actually broke this agreement but as there was only two (joint heads)they were allowed to proceed.

DIC + Gillett would again be a joint consortium so I presume that DIC or Gillett would have to take 51% of the shares?

Thats my understanding of it but I am probably way off.

i see. so the way the consortium was broken was down to moore's rushing the deal? id also like to edit and add how dumb it was of me to think that two rival parties would ever share an investment in anything, just shocking news right about now im sure u understand... :glare:

by **Ciggy** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:23 pm

They have released a statement they arnt selling looks like we are stuck with them for a while :down:

by **Redman in wales** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:25 pm

americans not selling

Liverpool owners deny sale claims

The owners (pictured with chief exec Rick Parry) face several obstacles
Liverpool's American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett have denied reports they are planning to sell the club.
Dubai International Capital, who failed in a bid to buy the club last January, have been linked with a second attempt.

It has been rumoured DIC are planning to bid for the 50% stake in Liverpool owned by Hicks.

A spokesman for the two Americans said: "Any suggestion Hicks and Gillett are contemplating a sale of the club or any portion of it is categorically untrue."

DIC founder and chairman Sameer Al-Ansari was the man responsible for the takeover bid a year ago, but Liverpool owner David Moores had a last minute change of heart and opted to sell to the Americans.

"It took me two weeks to get over that," said the 44-year-old al-Ansari, a life-long Liverpool said.

606: DEBATE
Hicks has to be a willing seller and I don't think he is, he will ride out the storm

ThePowerRules

"But it didn't dent my passion - I still go to every match when I'm here."

Al-Ansari, who has also recently been linked with Sir Richard Branson's move to take over building society Northern Rock, has maintained contact with Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry.

The club's current owners have come under fire from supporters recently after it emerged they had held talks with Jurgen Klinsmann about replacing Rafael Benitez as manager.

Hicks and Gillett are in process of refinancing the loan they took out to buy the club and have the added pressure of an expensive new stadium to fund.

It is uncertain how Gillett's position at the club would be affected should the DIC group buy his partner's share at Anfield.

-----------

coupled with the reuters link approving the re-financing deal:

LONDON, Jan 17 (Reuters) - The keenly awaited refinancing of British soccer club Liverpool FC is set to be closed before the end of February, a source familiar with the deal said on Thursday.

The 300 million pound ($589 million) debt refinancing, expected to be completed by the end of November, has been delayed amid turmoil in the credit markets.

Banks, facing multi-billion pound losses linked to the U.S. sub-prime crisis, have tightened up lending, or are charging more to assume risk.

The deal will go ahead, although it may not include an additional amount, of about 40 million pounds, earmarked for the start of building a new stadium, the source said.

Liverpool's debt facility with Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS.L: Quote, Profile, Research), taken out by U.S. billionaires Tom Hicks and George Gillett to acquire the club, expires in February.

Wachovia Corp (WB.N: Quote, Profile, Research), the fourth-largest U.S. bank, is arranging the refinancing. (Editing by Quentin Bryar)

----

i think they're not selling up -

doesn't look like DIC are in the picture, dispite all the rumours

by **J*o*n*D*o*e** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:30 pm

meht tsoc ot gniog sti suoires era C.I.D fi snaem hcihw ,thgif a tuohtiw erehwon gniog tnia ayug eseht

by **NANNY RED** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 10:04 pm

J*o*n*D*o*e wrote:meht tsoc ot gniog sti suoires era C.I.D fi snaem hcihw ,thgif a tuohtiw erehwon gniog tnia ayug eseht

In scouse please so i can understand

by **J*o*n*D*o*e** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:11 am

lol sorry ill recap, they aint going nowhere untill D.I.C give them what they want, money and lots of it.

by **NANNY RED** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:16 am

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:47 am

Americans dismiss Anfield rift
James Ducker

George Gillett Jr and Tom Hicks, the co-chairmen at Anfield, moved to reassure supporters last night that Liverpool would not be sold for the second time in less than a year.

However, serious questions remain over the future ownership of English football’s most successful club. Although the Americans are said to remain “fully committed” to Liverpool, it appears that Dubai International Capital (DIC) is prepared to back Gillett as he weighs up whether to make an offer to buy out the 50 per cent shareholding of his compatriot in the latest twist to the power struggle at Anfield.

If Gillett is bold enough to present such an offer to his partner — and there remain serious doubts that he will — the success of the move, unthinkable when they bought the club in February last year, would be dependent on Hicks agreeing to sell, although such a scenario was given short shrift last night.

A spokesman for the Americans said: “Any suggestion that Messrs Hicks and Gillett are contemplating a sale of the club or any portion thereof to DIC or anyone else is categorically untrue.”

Despite their desire to show a united front, the relationship between the pair is becoming increasingly strained and could be pushed to breaking point if Gillett, who alone does not have the funds to acquire Hicks’s stake, pursues the opening afforded by DIC, the private-equity arm of the Arab state, which nearly bought the club last year.

Sources have indicated that there is only a slim chance of Gillett putting the offer to Hicks and that he may instead approve a controversial £350 million refinancing plan for a new stadium that is expected to be ratified early next week. But even then, it is hard to see how they can carry on working together beyond the short to medium term.

Gillett was furious with Hicks for admitting this week that Jürgen Klinsmann had been offered the chance to succeed Rafael Benítez as manager and, by showing a willingness to speak to DIC, he has hardly shown much confidence in his partner.

With the refinancing deal close to being agreed — Hicks wants to replace the £270 million Royal Bank of Scotland loan that they used to buy the club with a £350 million advance that will allow Liverpool to proceed with the construction of a 70,000- capacity stadium in Stanley Park — the window of opportunity for Gillett to manoeuvre is small. However, DIC, which was established in 2004 effectively as an investment vehicle for Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid al-Maktoum, the world’s fifth-richest man, is unlikely to be permanently dissuaded in its attempts to buy into Liverpool in the event that a deal cannot be struck.

DIC tried unsuccessfully to buy a portion of new shares in the club in November and has the backing of the majority of Liverpool supporters, who, upset about the Americans’ treatment of Benítez, made their feelings known during the 5-0 FA Cup third-round replay victory over Luton Town on Tuesday. A recent poll showed that 83 per cent of fans were in favour of DIC buying the club.

A change of ownership would not necessarily play into Benítez’s hands, however, as it has been mooted that DIC would favour appointing its own man. Similarly, Rick Parry, the chief executive, may also find himself between a rock and a hard place.

Like Gillett, Parry is uncomfortable with the refinancing package being proposed, but having given his backing to the Americans over DIC last year, he may find he has little support from the consortium, which had previously stated a desire to appoint its own chief executive
___

by **account deleted by request** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:49 am

I spotted this article over on YNWA that someone posted, it's from a few years back.

http://www.playthegame.org/Knowled....on.aspx

There are other examples: a contract between Bank of America and Vasco da Gama was intended to cover twenty five years but lasted only two. Worst of all, perhaps, is the case of the Hicks group. This group is a hedge fund based in Texas and linked to President George W. Bush. Hicks took over two teams, Corinthians and Cruzeiro, through contracts that should have run until the year two thousand and ten.

These deals included promises of construction of new stadiums. Hicks also bought forty nine percent of the traffic television network and dreamed up its own ultimate soccer business: Hicks teams facing each other in matches broadcast, naturally, by Hicks. Hicks set up a cable channel in Latin America, PSN, acquired national basketball association rights, formula one races and soccer championships at overblown prices. Hicks invested about five hundred million dollars and in only two years filed for bankruptcy.

I e-mailed the guy to make sure it was "our" Hicks and he replied saying this:

"Of course that the Group Hicks of Corinthians is the same. They also wanted to manage argentine clubs. I remember some years ago I wrote an article called Hicks vs Hicks by Hicks TV. Because they also founded a latinoamerican TV channell called PSN (Panamerican Sports Network). Many people believed it was a great excuse for money laundering. The payed 3or 4 times more the rights for Libertadores Cup, Formula One, NBA and so on, a lot of money. Friends from ESPN told me that it was imposible to make a good business with such a lot of money. Just one year and a half later PSN went on bankrupt. Cheers."

I posted this up on YNWA earlier and the lads have found a couple of articles about it:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BEK/is_12_8/ai_67881225

Carlos Roberto de Mello, Corinthians' vice president for finances, says Hicks, Muse waited too long to reinvest the profits from the trades. "That hurt Corinthians' performance and irritated fans used to a better playing team," he says. He warns that the strategy may cut into future team profits if Hicks, Muse doesn't get busy building the team up again.

But Hicks, Muse's Pan-American Sports Teams President Richard Law defends the decisions. "The reality of any sports franchise is that teams go through cycles as players mature," he says. "Our job is not to turn back the inevitable, but to build Corinthians and Cruzeiro up from the junior ranks," referring to the teams' 16- to 20-year-old players.

They were also supposed to build a 45,000 stadium for Corinthians

As part of a separate deal, Hicks, Muse plans to build the club a new training center in early 2001 and a new 45,000-seat stadium in the next few years.

It never happened.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Corpora....724.cms

Meanwhile, the free flow of capital has resulted in foreigners investing in football clubs, often with disastrous consequences, such as when the American buyout firm Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst bought Corinthians, Sao Paulo’s leading club.

Corinthians won the World Cup championships in 2000, but the club’s performance subsequently slumped and a political row ensued as fans began to protest about everything from player trades to changes in the colour of jerseys. Hicks, Muse exited three years later, following a row with its local partner.

How the f*ck can a few random lads find out all this information after a 5 minute search of the internet yet the chairman and chief exec of our club can't? Moores and Parry sold us down the river the c*nts.

Also, how has this sh*t not come out in the papers? You'd think someone would have stumbled across this considering Corinthians is Mascherano's former club and it seemed he was at the centre of the row when it first happened.

ripped from RAWK

by **maguskwt** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:48 am

wow... this is a scary find saint...

by **Emerald Red** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 3:58 am

maguskwt wrote:wow... this is a scary find saint...

It's also not that surprising. I have a strong feeling that these two c*nts will sell to DIC. It's just a hunch, but I'm thinking Parry, Moores and these two clowns are all going to end up a lot better off for their respective parts in this ridiculous scandal. It's a well disguised con if you ask me, and the real cost is that this club's name is to be dragged through the press as if it were a cheap prostitute. Someone needs hung.

by **sworth26** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:15 am

I feel sick.

by **NANNY RED** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 10:18 am

s@int wrote:I spotted this article over on YNWA that someone posted, it's from a few years back.

http://www.playthegame.org/Knowled....on.aspx

There are other examples: a contract between Bank of America and Vasco da Gama was intended to cover twenty five years but lasted only two. Worst of all, perhaps, is the case of the Hicks group. This group is a hedge fund based in Texas and linked to President George W. Bush. Hicks took over two teams, Corinthians and Cruzeiro, through contracts that should have run until the year two thousand and ten.

These deals included promises of construction of new stadiums. Hicks also bought forty nine percent of the traffic television network and dreamed up its own ultimate soccer business: Hicks teams facing each other in matches broadcast, naturally, by Hicks. Hicks set up a cable channel in Latin America, PSN, acquired national basketball association rights, formula one races and soccer championships at overblown prices. Hicks invested about five hundred million dollars and in only two years filed for bankruptcy.

I e-mailed the guy to make sure it was "our" Hicks and he replied saying this:

"Of course that the Group Hicks of Corinthians is the same. They also wanted to manage argentine clubs. I remember some years ago I wrote an article called Hicks vs Hicks by Hicks TV. Because they also founded a latinoamerican TV channell called PSN (Panamerican Sports Network). Many people believed it was a great excuse for money laundering. The payed 3or 4 times more the rights for Libertadores Cup, Formula One, NBA and so on, a lot of money. Friends from ESPN told me that it was imposible to make a good business with such a lot of money. Just one year and a half later PSN went on bankrupt. Cheers."

I posted this up on YNWA earlier and the lads have found a couple of articles about it:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BEK/is_12_8/ai_67881225

Carlos Roberto de Mello, Corinthians' vice president for finances, says Hicks, Muse waited too long to reinvest the profits from the trades. "That hurt Corinthians' performance and irritated fans used to a better playing team," he says. He warns that the strategy may cut into future team profits if Hicks, Muse doesn't get busy building the team up again.

But Hicks, Muse's Pan-American Sports Teams President Richard Law defends the decisions. "The reality of any sports franchise is that teams go through cycles as players mature," he says. "Our job is not to turn back the inevitable, but to build Corinthians and Cruzeiro up from the junior ranks," referring to the teams' 16- to 20-year-old players.

They were also supposed to build a 45,000 stadium for Corinthians

As part of a separate deal, Hicks, Muse plans to build the club a new training center in early 2001 and a new 45,000-seat stadium in the next few years.

It never happened.

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Corpora....724.cms

Meanwhile, the free flow of capital has resulted in foreigners investing in football clubs, often with disastrous consequences, such as when the American buyout firm Hicks, Muse, Tate & Furst bought Corinthians, Sao Paulo’s leading club.

Corinthians won the World Cup championships in 2000, but the club’s performance subsequently slumped and a political row ensued as fans began to protest about everything from player trades to changes in the colour of jerseys. Hicks, Muse exited three years later, following a row with its local partner.

How the f*ck can a few random lads find out all this information after a 5 minute search of the internet yet the chairman and chief exec of our club can't? Moores and Parry sold us down the river the c*nts.

Also, how has this sh*t not come out in the papers? You'd think someone would have stumbled across this considering Corinthians is Mascherano's former club and it seemed he was at the centre of the row when it first happened.

ripped from RAWK

Its just gettin :censored:

worse only thing weve got to hope for is it doesnt take them three years to sell up and the do it as soon as

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online