Topic: AP NewsBreak: Hicks, Gillett reject DIC bid to buy Liverpool

[Rotation]

God, DIC really, really want this club badly don't they.

1. dic seems to actually care about rescuing liverpool because i dont see how we can be seen as a good business investment at this point
2. fuck of hicks
3.is anyone else beginning to like gillete a little i mean he seems like he actually feels apologetic for the situation he put us in
4.i hate looking at these stories and seeing hicks fat face staring back at me
5. that article by kay looks promising
6.FUCK  OFF HICKS

[chanti]

The Financial Times has more detail about the prospective terms of any deal. Possible overall package of £500 million it's saying.

++++++

DIC offers share of any success to Liverpool owners

by Roger Blitz

March 6 2008

Dubai International Capital is willing to give Liverpool's US owners a share in future profits, such as stadium receipts and trophy success, if they accept its offer for the Premier League club.

The investment arm of the United Arab Emirates last week tabled a £400m indicative offer to Tom Hicks and George Gillett.

DIC envisages buying out Mr Gillett's half-stake in the club and allowing Mr Hicks to arrange his other financial affairs before taking full control of the club, possibly through staged purchases of his 50 per cent stake.

Mr Gillett was given a deadline of midnight on Tuesday to accept the bid, but people close to the situation say he is holding out for more.

Negotiations in London between advisers representing the investment arm of the UAE and Mr Gillett are understood to have continued beyond the deadline, during which DIC put forward its profit-sharing proposals.

Negotiations are set to resume today.

Under the revised deal, DIC would cover the £350m debt the US owners refinanced with Royal Bank of Scotland and US investment bank Wachovia in January.

On top of that, it has offered Mr Gillett a package of £80m, mostly made up of cash and topped up with a share of future profits. On the basis that such a package would have to be offered to Mr Hicks if DIC is to fulfil its aim of taking full control of Liverpool, the overall package could add up to more than £500m.

The Hicks-Gillett consortium's refinancing has enabled the club to announce it is pressing its plans to move from its Anfield stadium to a new 71,000-capacity stadium in Stanley Park.

Out of the £350m loan, £60m is going towards start-up costs for the new stadium. But the refinancing deal needs to be renegotiated in 16 months.

DIC believes it will get its way, in spite of Mr Hicks' insistence that he is not a seller and that he would veto the sale of his business partner's stake if it led to DIC gaining control of the club.

DIC is unlikely to do a deal with Mr Gillett unless it is assured that it ends up controlling Liverpool.

The situation is complicated by the apparent breakdown in the relationship of the US owners. One person close to Mr Hicks said: "The relationship is probably a bit strained. There is not a great deal going on between them."

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/722a179a-eb1f-11dc-a5f4-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

Atleast it is offical GG is a big c*nt as the other fat yank

Sick ,all the bad karma from unhappy fans

[chanti]

3.is anyone else beginning to like gillete a little i mean he seems like he actually feels apologetic for the situation he put us in

sorry, not me seems like a silent greedy bastard.

[Rotation]

sorry, not me seems like a silent greedy bastard.

yeah on second thought i hate the c*nt as well... but i dont hate him as much as hicks and i think everyone can agree on that

[LiverBirdKop]

I just hate the fact that both b*****s are gonna profit handsomely from putting the whole club and the fans through this for a year. 

[Rotation]

I just hate the fact that both b*****s are gonna profit handsomely from putting the whole club and the fans through this for a year. 

its annoying but i couldnt care less about that at this point...just want them out...then we sic skrtel on them

[RedBoywonder]

500 Mil, Crazy money, makes me sick to think of those two making 150M clear profit when all they did was lie, cheat & mismanage us for the past year.

[JohnnyDrama]

Yanks out now

[belfast-connection]

on a serious note if this profit-sharing proposal is kosher then i think it indicates that DIC do want us as a prestige vehicle, that profit is not all that important to them and that they do want to 'rescue' us from these scum

[lachesis]

What a fucking waste of a year.
What a fucking waste of skin - G&H

And we now expect, after the last year to suddenly give an image of a professional club and raise our profile? Hicks valued the club at $1 billion, if the offer matches £500 million then by his own admission he should sell.

One thing that worries me, is that why are dic so keen to pursue this even after being shafted on money? I think if dic do get it eventually, Parry and Moores can kiss goodbye out of sheer principle. But I still don't understand why dic would wnat to overpay for an asset which potentially needs to dominate success and merchandising in order to have it come close to it's value.

Bit confusing, and yes, I know he's an LFC fan yada yada yada but I fail to see how overpaying for the club, having to build a new stadium on top of that, as well as the signings we are missing - players of the £20-25 million calibre, and a couple of them at least can be seen as anything less than a huge long term investment commitment thats a bit of a gamble.

I just want stability back at the club, and to be fucking informaed of what's going on etc.

[Something Else]

on a serious note if this profit-sharing proposal is kosher then i think it indicates that DIC do want us as a prestige vehicle, that profit is not all that important to them and that they do want to 'rescue' us from these scum

it wont half look good as one of the things they own and run

espeically if we are ran as well as some of their other investments

We are a prestige brand

A top class Ferarri, not something you rely on to do your day to day stuff, but what you drive at the weekend hoping everyone sees you

[StormyDog]

Lachesis,

That Matoon guy, seems to be someone who doesn't take no as an answer when it comes to buying companies. In horse racing, he sometimes misses his targets, but not often. He wants his country to be No.1, and he will eat people like Hicks to do it.

I had to laugh at the suggestion that hicks gets his $1B valuation, but DIC only pay £350M for the club.
The idea of future profit sharing is sneaky as (like belfast Connection put) we don't make profit. Liverpool FC are here to win trophies and invest in the team.

[HarryLabrador]

1. dic seems to actually care about rescuing liverpool because i dont see how we can be seen as a good business investment at this point
2. fuck of hicks
3.is anyone else beginning to like gillete a little i mean he seems like he actually feels apologetic for the situation he put us in
4.i hate looking at these stories and seeing hicks fat face staring back at me
5. that article by kay looks promising
6.FUCK  OFF HICKS

Agree with every point apart from 3.  Gillett is as mean but more intelligent than Hicks. He knew Hicks before he brought him here. They planned this all along. He knew everything about Tom Hicks and his previous. In fact, I would go as far as to say Gillett has been the most duplicitous money grabbing creep.

[StormyDog]

Agree with every point apart from 3.  Gillett is as mean but more intelligent than Hicks. He knew Hicks before he brought him here. They planned this all along. He knew everything about Tom Hicks and his previous. In fact, I would go as far as to say Gillett has been the most duplicitous money grabbing creep.

Can we all keep the Gillett and Hicks bashing down till they have gone. don't want to tempt fate.

[Macedonian_Red]

What a fucking waste of a year.

I respectfully disagree ...

I hate the Yanks and I want them out as soon as possible, but we got some extraordinary talent in the past year ... Torres, Mascherano, Babel, Lucas, Skrtel ...

Yes, I am aware of the fact that those players were bought by loaned money and eventually, the fans will have to pay the price for that loan ... However, I doubt that Moores would have been brave to spend so much ...

[StormyDog]

I respectfully disagree ...

I hate the Yanks and I want them out as soon as possible, but we got some extraordinary talent in the past year ... Torres, Mascherano, Babel, Lucas, Skrtel ...

Yes, I am aware of the fact that those players were bought by loaned money and eventually, the fans will have to pay the price for that loan ... However, I doubt that Moores would have been brave to spend so much ...

The only +ve thing that G+H have done is to provide a way to allow all the to-bit investors who ran the LFC board and held the club back to gracefully fuck-off.

[jonnygeeart]

The only +ve thing that G+H have done is to provide a way to allow all the to-bit investors who ran the LFC board and held the club back to gracefully fuck-off.

nonsense they were going anyway

[RedBoywonder]

I respectfully disagree ...

I hate the Yanks and I want them out as soon as possible, but we got some extraordinary talent in the past year ... Torres, Mascherano, Babel, Lucas, Skrtel ...

Yes, I am aware of the fact that those players were bought by loaned money and eventually, the fans will have to pay the price for that loan ... However, I doubt that Moores would have been brave to spend so much ...

Plus its upped your post count no end! 

[rossipersiempre]

Hard to escape the increasingly obvious fact that Sheik Mo/Al-Ansari will not walk away from us this time, it's no longer about the money, crunching the figures etc. This has the look of "by whatever means necessary" order from on high. If true, then I think those of us who have been maintaining that DIC see us as a Godolphin type business (prestige operation albeit one that pays its way in the long term) are correct. £400m rising to £500m with future profit share is an insane price from a beancounting view, but then these guys can make a few hundred mill on a single deal before breakfast. I still have my doubts that Hicks will go down without kicking and screaming, but whatever, I hope karma visits both Yanks and sees their obscene profits vanish down the pit of recession currently taking grip back 'home'.

[Dr. Beaker]

I think there is an element of a love affair here. I think DIC are really going to show off with us, ie look what we can do. I can't imagine what the stadium is going to be like - and I bet the drawing-board stage is well completed by now.
It's almost time to put all the negative anti-yank stuff behind us, the Sheikh wants us, so that's it. Goliath generally wins in the real world.
Now fuck off you hideously bloated, pumpkin-headed twat - well did say almost.

[chrisbonnie]

god willing DIC to get in, but if i was the Sheik, id be rightly pissed off that i had to spend double, what i would have last year, if i hadnt have given up so easily

[StormyDog]

nonsense they were going anyway

Not without an investor, Can you prove that they would sell shares to these "dodgy-arabs" ? 
Selling to American seasoned Stadium builders was much easier to stomach.

G+H have done nothing else of worth apart from sweep the floor for the next guy and made a tidy sum from it.

[RyanBabelsFish]

Yanks out now

Best first post ever!

[rossipersiempre]

G+H have done nothing else of worth apart from sweep the floor for the next guy and made a tidy sum from it.

Sweep the floor? I'd say it's more like they've crapped on the antique 1892 persian rug.

[TheBionicCarrot]

People shouldn't get too excited and hot under the collar about the "profit sharing".  I'm suprised at the FT using such a wanky phrase at all.  What we're talking about here is an earnout structure which is a very, very common feature of any M&A transaction.

I expect it was put forward as a middle way to close the valuation gap.  DIC offer £x, Gillett wants £y, so they negotiate that DIC will give a certain amount on completion, plus future payments that will get them somewhere towards an acceptable return for Gillett.  The future payments will be dependent on future profitability - this is DIC covering their asses.

Basically the sellers argument is: "You should pay me more because this asset has the potential to generate massive profits for you".

The buyer says: "Okay - we'll pay you some extra further down the line when those profits have actually happened - if they don't happen, then you were wrong and the completion figure was the right valuation".

This a classic earn-out mechanism.  All that has happened is that some media numpty has got wind of it and tagged it "profit sharing". 

It's really nothing to get hot and bothered about.

[Mudface_]

Thanks, TBC. It just sounds like a player transfer with clauses payable if he makes a certain number of appearances, plays for England etc.

[TheBionicCarrot]

Thanks, TBC. It just sounds like a player transfer with clauses payable if he makes a certain number of appearances, plays for England etc.

Exactly.

[StormyDog]

People shouldn't get too excited and hot under the collar about the "profit sharing".  I'm suprised at the FT using such a wanky phrase at all.  What we're talking about here is an earnout structure which is a very, very common feature of any M&A transaction.

I expect it was put forward as a middle way to close the valuation gap.  DIC offer £x, Gillett wants £y, so they negotiate that DIC will give a certain amount on completion, plus future payments that will get them somewhere towards an acceptable return for Gillett.  The future payments will be dependent on future profitability - this is DIC covering their asses.

Basically the sellers argument is: "You should pay me more because this asset has the potential to generate massive profits for you".

The buyer says: "Okay - we'll pay you some extra further down the line when those profits have actually happened - if they don't happen, then you were wrong and the completion figure was the right valuation".

This a classic earn-out mechanism.  All that has happened is that some media numpty has got wind of it and tagged it "profit sharing". 

It's really nothing to get hot and bothered about.

It's nothing to get hot and bothered about 'cause we don't make a profit.

P.S. If DIC take over they may just update Anfield rather than move grounds as all that tradition is what they are buying.

[rossipersiempre]

People shouldn't get too excited and hot under the collar about the "profit sharing".  I'm suprised at the FT using such a wanky phrase at all.  What we're talking about here is an earnout structure which is a very, very common feature of any M&A transaction.

I expect it was put forward as a middle way to close the valuation gap.  DIC offer £x, Gillett wants £y, so they negotiate that DIC will give a certain amount on completion, plus future payments that will get them somewhere towards an acceptable return for Gillett.  The future payments will be dependent on future profitability - this is DIC covering their asses.

Basically the sellers argument is: "You should pay me more because this asset has the potential to generate massive profits for you".

The buyer says: "Okay - we'll pay you some extra further down the line when those profits have actually happened - if they don't happen, then you were wrong and the completion figure was the right valuation".

This a classic earn-out mechanism.  All that has happened is that some media numpty has got wind of it and tagged it "profit sharing". 

It's really nothing to get hot and bothered about.

...is right. And as has been stated it is very simple for those profits NOT to appear on the balance sheet for a long time.

Thing that annoys me though is that it's a massive piss take the Yanks saying 'we want more as this can generate huge profits for you (not true but)" when neither have the financial or operational means to realise those profits. It's like selling a house which needs modernising - try asking the developer for a stake in future profits on top of an agreed above-market purchase price, just because you can't afford to do it up yourself, and see how far you get.

[jonnygeeart]

Not without an investor, Can you prove that they would sell shares to these "dodgy-arabs" ? 
Selling to American seasoned Stadium builders was much easier to stomach.

G+H have done nothing else of worth apart from sweep the floor for the next guy and made a tidy sum from it.

the deal was done with dic until parry and moores fucked em around last year letting the fuckers in the door

[TheBionicCarrot]

It's nothing to get hot and bothered about 'cause we don't make a profit.

P.S. If DIC take over they may just update Anfield rather than move grounds as all that tradition is what they are buying.

We might not consistently make a net profit according to the accounts - but I expect we make pretty decent EBIT/EBITDA*, which is what the earn-out is potentially based on.

(* Earnings before interest tax depreciation and amortisation)

[rossipersiempre]

P.S. If DIC take over they may just update Anfield rather than move grounds as all that tradition is what they are buying.

Errrrr, okaaay then......*screw loose finger-head gesture*

[TheBionicCarrot]

...is right. And as has been stated it is very simple for those profits NOT to appear on the balance sheet for a long time.

Thing that annoys me though is that it's a massive piss take the Yanks saying 'we want more as this can generate huge profits for you (not true but)" when neither have the financial or operational means to realise those profits. It's like selling a house which needs modernising - try asking the developer for a stake in future profits on top of an agreed above-market purchase price, just because you can't afford to do it up yourself, and see how far you get.

I know what you mean - and that would be the argument from any acquirer to try and drive price down.  But any seller worth his salt looks at what an asset is worth to the person they are selling to - then bases their valuation on this.  Essentially, it is a case of understanding why a buyer wants something, understanding the value in it for them, and then pitching your price accordingly.

You wouldn't really expect anything else.  You've got to emotionally detach yourself from the fact that they are clearly dastardly c*nts and the "asset" we are discussing is our beloved club.  Once you get beyond that, there's nothing out of the ordinary in the stance of either party.

[rossipersiempre]

We might not consistently make a net profit according to the accounts - but I expect we make pretty decent EBIT/EBITDA*, which is what the earn-out is potentially based on.

(* Earnings before interest tax depreciation and amortisation)

Oh christ, we've got a live one, a beancounter in our midst - the signs were obvious, the wacky user ID and avatar, compensating for something....

Just kidding Carrot, appreciate the input. Have you seen the club's figures over last few years though. Even before al those deductions, we're not exactly a cash cow - best ever season financially was a pre-tax profit of less than £10m - hardly "pretty decent".

[coffeehead]

It's nothing to get hot and bothered about 'cause we don't make a profit.

Indeed, DIC's accountants may make sure that we don't..er..make a profit...as such

[mercury]

I know what you mean - and that would be the argument from any acquirer to try and drive price down.  But any seller worth his salt looks at what an asset is worth to the person they are selling to - then bases their valuation on this.  Essentially, it is a case of understanding why a buyer wants something, understanding the value in it for them, and then pitching your price accordingly.

You wouldn't really expect anything else.  You've got to emotionally detach yourself from the fact that they are clearly dastardly c*nts and the "asset" we are discussing is our beloved club.  Once you get beyond that, there's nothing out of the ordinary in the stance of either party.

exactly.  Much as they are c***, they are good biz man.

[pazcom]

P.S. If DIC take over they may just update Anfield rather than move grounds as all that tradition is what they are buying.

You sure about that? Thought the whole idea of selling Liverpool include paying for the new stadium. It's also been proved that staying at Anfield doesn't generate the income of the Mancs, Arsenal. Lets not forget that although DIC appear to now make this personal it's still the invest arm of the Dubai Government and the long term aim is to make money.  Plus didn't think we could develop Anfield anymore?

[StormyDog]

the deal was done with dic until parry and moores fucked em around last year letting the fuckers in the door

I'm not convinced it was, the delaying that allowed G+H  a toe-in implied that Moores couldn't get agreement on selling the club.

[neilem]

As part of the deal, those yank fuckwits expecting a financial share in our future success of the club? Please tell me that is a false rumour.

[TheBionicCarrot]

Oh christ, we've got a live one, a beancounter in our midst - the signs were obvious, the wacky user ID and avatar, compensating for something....

Just kidding Carrot, appreciate the input. Have you seen the club's figures over last few years though. Even before al those deductions, we're not exactly a cash cow - best ever season financially was a pre-tax profit of less than £10m.

Thanks for the friendly character assassination...(!)

Agreed we are not especially exciting according to historical profits.  But the whole reason the Yanks are pouring over here en mass to buy up our football clubs is the potential to take profits into a new stratosphere with increased control over media rights likely to fall into the hands of clubs in the coming years (amongst other things).

I bet there's a few spreadsheets knocking around the Yanks' advisers with some pretty racey forecasts in them.