Report: Hicks considers hedge funds to part-fund takeover
As Liverpool fans look forward with dread to the summer transfer window, a report in the Telegraph this morning claims that Liverpool co-owner Tom Hicks has been looking at using “hedge funds” as part of his plans to finance his attempt to take control at Anfield.
The report appears in the money section rather than the sports section, and points out the hedge funds approached are some of those that helped Malcolm Glazer in his takeover of Manchester United. The reports says Glazer got £275m of the £790m purchase price from hedge funds in the US, namely Perry Capital, Och-Ziff Capital Management and Citadel.
Hicks has been using Merril Lynch in his search for finance, and the Telegraph says: “Advisers are understood to have approached some of these funds recently to raise financing that would help him acquire George Gillett’s 50% stake in Liverpool and build a new 70,000-seat stadium at Stanley Park.”
Based on the lowest value usually quoted in terms of DIC’s offer for the club, Hicks needs at least £200m to buy Gillet out, which includes Gillett’s half of the total £350m finance, £105m of which is on the club.
According to the article, this type of financing is “playing an increasingly important in role in private equity financing, especially as the credit crunch has made it harder to raise debt from blue-chip banks.” It mentions retailer Peacocks being taken into private hands by its chief executive for just over £400m, and says that Newcastle were looking like being bought by hedge fund Polygon until wealthy supporter Mike Ashley stepped in.
The report says that even this “mysterious world of capital” isn’t a straightforward one, and that “at least one leading fund involved in these types of deals is understood to have rejected the opportunity to finance Mr Hicks’ plans for Liverpool.” It quotes a source: “There was an approach. It was turned down because the investment case for Liverpool is not the same as Manchester United.”
The Telegraph adds itself that “other hedge funds are understood to still be in discussions to provide financing for the deal.”
The article also points to the confusion over the alleged pre-emption deadline, saying: “Mr Hicks… has a pre-emption right that allows either man to acquire the other’s stake before it is sold to an external investor. It is said the right runs out towards the end of May, although banking sources say it is not clear whether this is in fact the case.”
If Och-Ziff are one of the funds approached then it’s little wonder they turned Hicks down. They are almost 10% owned by DIC, after selling a minority stake to them in October.
Citadel describe themselves on their website as “a leading global financial institution focused on alternative investment strategies. Founded in 1990, Citadel today deploys more than $20 billion in investment capital across multiple asset classes and investment strategies.” A 2005 Forbes article said Perry Capital were worth $11 billion.
In his much-criticised interview with Sky Sports last month Tom Hicks said he was planning to use various investors to help him buy George Gillett out. “It’s complicated, but it’s going to happen. I can’t force George to accept but I will make him an attractive offer soon. It’s not just the money to buy George out – I want to fix the entire financial structure of the entire club. If I’m the majority owner I could put more capital in, and I’ve got a 25-year track record of being a very successful investor around the world where I know there are people, institutions and individual investors who would like to be a minority investor with me and Liverpool.”
He also made some more bold claims: “I’ll take all the debt off the club. I want to get all the permanent financing in place for the stadium, and I want to have our finances very sound. I want to be the majority owner of a group that buys the club and fixes the balance sheet of the club at the same time, and finances the stadium at the same time.”
Buying Gillett out, covering the existing debt and funding the stadium would cost something like £700m. Perhaps Hicks’ most successful days are behind him, but one of his most well-known deals saw him buy Dr Pepper and Seven-Up for $45m before selling it two years later for $700m (around £350m). But a rumour first heard in early March claims JP Morgan, one of Hicks’ US bankers, are all but set to force him to sell his Liverpool FC share to pay for his commitments in the States.
As for what hedge funds are, descriptions vary usually depending on how scary you need them to sound. Malcolm Glazer seems to have funded around a third of his purchase of Manchester United using them, and his name strikes fear into just about any football fan. In most cases very little needs to be revealed about the details of hedge funds, leaving those sitting outside a deal wondering just what is going on. But the bottom line of using such a method for financing is that the two sides to the deal negotiate their own terms, and nobody is forcing one side to accept a deal they don’t feel comfortable with. If the purchase of LFC is made using terms similar to the worst examples then nervous times await, but it doesn’t necessarily need to be a worry at all. Whether we’ll find out the terms of such a deal, assuming one goes ahead, remains to be seen.
But what must be seen, sooner rather than later, is progress.
The word coming out of Anfield points to Rafa Benítez being given a transfer budget that may work out as the lowest in the top flight, and coming as the club have moved so close on the field to those above them it will be a huge disappointment if this summer’s transfer dealings result in the club losing ground again, but until the club get an outright majority owner there seems to be no other outcome. Hicks seems determined to find the finance, however long it takes. DIC show no signs of upping their offer, relying instead it would seem on their confidence that Hicks won’t be able to find that finance.
Further reading:
BBC News – Business – So what are hedge funds?
Times – Hedge funds on the brink as US Federal Reserve cash fails to ease crisis
Times – Hedge fund returns ‘are vastly overstated’
Independent – 1 debt is $3bn but returns are so good, hedge funds want in
179 Responses to “Report: Hicks considers hedge funds to part-fund takeover”
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment
Additional comments powered by BackType
let’s put it this way… Hicks… Gillets… Parry… or whoever directly in charge with Liverpool Foottball Club, right now… should put and end to all this nonsense ASAP.
Nott Forest… Leeds… should i say more..? It’s not impossible, for crying out loud it’s NOT IMPOSSIBLE… so sort all these mess ASAP!
Jim – I don’t believe that Hick’s has got a dog in hells chance of getting a hedge fund on board. My reason’s for thinking this is that they will get very little in return and it will be over such a long period of time.
Massive RED – Thats why a hedge fund will not have ought to do with this deal. Risks to high, returns to low and period of time to realise their potential to long. I would not worry about it, DIC aren’t. Hedge funds are not interested in what Hicks is offering.
i wonder that gillett would have agreed to alienate his property rights so much by allowing a clause that would give tom o hicks an indefinite veto on him selling his half of kop holdings. it does not seem to me to pass the common sense test.
i also really wonder where any potential court action would take place- the US, the UK, or wherever Kop holdings is incorporated.
i am sceptical to say the least that tom o will be able to raise the finance to buy the club. i know that jim downplays the global credit crunch. i feel that it is much more serious than he believes. the proof is in the pudding. i cannot think of a pledge that tom o has made wrt liverpool that has come true yet.
prove me wrong tom o. or actually, please dont.
PS- as a Texan, i feel that anyone who would give themselves the tag “texas dawg” has a lot to do to gain any credibility with me, and from what ive read, he/she/it has not done it yet. how in the f*ck were the Longhorns ever, ever, tom o’s team? Sic ‘em Bears anyway mate!
jim, thanks for your well-written and civil reply to my post on a previous thread.
one response though. i skip the parts in your posts, for example, where you discuss whether or not the sheiks son is a manure supporter. thats rubbish, and i know you know that. its like whenever a new player signs, he was a liverpool supporter since before he was conceived. im not sure what this strange english obsession with the current player being a boyhood supporter comes from. its pretty childish to me. and there is a fair bit of repetition, understandable given the underlying facts (guesses?) have not changed much in the past few months.
julie, i have to say that i always read your posts.
Great post Cory,
wonderful to here the views of a Texan red!
dawg, have you noticed that anytime an American posts on this forum they always seem to take issue with your views?
Jim, thanks for the article.
‘Gloomy’ is the word I use to describe the potential outcome of Hicks going down the alleged route proposed.
It seems that Hicks is really struggling to get the cash together which is why he’s going to a riskier method of raising the finance. I did not get the impression that Hedge Funds was where he wanted to go for extra funds, initially. But the apparent fact that he’s going down that road seems to suggest he’s more interersted in achieving his £1bn valuation of the club through building the stadium etc than investing in the club.
If this is the case, Jim, the balance you’ve tried to bring to the Hicks, Gillett, Parry, DIC debate would appear to also be undermined, as he seems to be in it solely to achieve his profit expectations. This is made even more apparent if Rafa’s summer spend is at the bottom-end of the money available to premiership clubs for transfers. (How could anyone have serious expectations of Rafa, if this is the case.)
I’ve said it many times before – who wouldn’t want to make money off a deal to boost your overall income. That is not my reason for having serious doubts about Hicks.
The problem I have with Hicks at the moment – as per the Sky Sports Interview – is that he’s trying to win fans over by undermining everyone else but actually is doing anything and everything possible to raise money to buy Gillett out – even though he’s severely cash strapped, it seems – simply to achieve a higher return for his investment – nothing to do with the interest of the club. Why, Jim, doesn’t he just say it?
He’s making himself seem like a glutinous pig in the eyes of those suspcious of his motives. Come clean is always the best way, unless you’ve got something to hide.
Edward – Dawg must be a very unpopular person in the states. Good of you to notice that dog is a billy no mates. Thats what you get for sticking up for Hicks. I don’t mind him though.
Anthony,
neither do I. I just think that he’s always barking up the
wrong tree. Maybe he’s barking mad!
Edward – I’ve said it before but I believe Hicks may be his sugar daddy, and Dawg will not hear a bad thing about him.
Jim – On the 21 of this month you should write an article on the supposed deadline passing, and we can all watch the news storys on LFC live like we watch the clock on new years eve. I feel like a kid looking forward to christmas, I can’t wait.
i just think that he/she/it doesn’t have much intelligent to say, and tends to rely on non-americans ignorance of american sport (or his belief in his knowing more, which is often dubious) to make points of defence or comparison.
tom o hicks represents the worst side of texas IMHO.
PS- Jim, i know that i use the british english spelling with some of my words. this is a quirk (affectation), not a clue to a false identity
. even the paranoid have enemies, right mate?
@Cory: I had it “confirmed” to me this week that two of the sons are football fanatics. One is a Red of the proper persuasion, the other is a red from the dark side!
I don’t think it matters one way or another either, but a lot of people do. It’s no criticism, but if it made a difference the difference would be shown by Tom Hicks and George Gillett having been bought out a long time ago – or in fact having never had the opportunity in the first place.
But you’re right, the underlying “facts” haven’t changed much.
Cory – The obsession comes from the point that people who are born to support the team generally have more emotional ties to the club which makes for a much stronger support on the indivduals part.
From what I read about hedge funds they charge anything between 2% and 20% management fees on the value of their investment. Hicks needs £500 million (stadium and Gillett). If he (being generous here) gets half of that from the Hegde fund route we could be in for massive fees to be paid by the club on a quarterly basis.
The hedge funds know they have Hicks over a barrell here. He is a desperate man and they realise this. I would expect they will drive a hard bargain. If Hicks wants to keep the club and make his money then he will be forced to accept any deal on offer. Therefore I would expect the hedge fund fees to be in the upper end of the scale.
e.g. £250 at 15% is £37.5m. The other £450m may be 8% to 10% so say £40m a year. That’s £77.5m a year without even starting bring in players etc. Liverpool can expect to bring in about £50m a year in TV and prize money. I am assuming players are paid out of day to day income (gate receipts and merchanise) Therefore we have a yearly deficient of £27.5m. Not only are we massively in debt but the debt we got into is not even enough to get the club in good shape.
Hicks is disaster for this club. I find it almost impossible to believe that he has any love for this club.
The figures above are my take on it – I could be completely wrong.
Also, where is the £45m for transfers that we fans are paying interest on?
This summer is vital – we are the 4th best team in the league therefore we are in the most danger of being caught by the teams below. If we lose the £20m from the champions league then I dread to think how bad the downward spirral will become. We are dicing with death under Hicks control.
@midlands-red: I understand what you’re saying.
The aim for the supporters, who shouldn’t actually be worrying about finances, is to see the signings we’re short of each summer, whether that’s two top-class strikers or reserve keeper and a full-back. We should be able to tell we’ve got what we need as August comes to an end purely by the words of the manager.
By the end of the season we should know he was right based on the performances over the season.
I agree on coming clean. I can understand some secrecy until deals are done – much like I’d expect Rafa not to announce to the world that he’d found a good deal on a player.
They’re all in it for profit. Dubai perhaps have the additional business justification of using us as a marketing tool for Dubai, which is still profit-minded but in a nicer way.
It all boils down to one thing in the end anyway – actions speak louder than words.
@Cory: I’ve not noticed your spellings, punctuation, or if there are half-a-dozen other users on your IP address, so I wouldn’t worry if I were you!
@Stephen: I think we’ve got to stop for a moment before getting carried away about the hedge funds. We don’t know what kind of deal he’s getting or if he’s even going to go down that path. If the deals are linked to profits rather than a fixed percentage regardless of profit it could be a good move. But without knowing the specifics we can’t tell.
The £45m for transfers was actually split between transfers and operating costs, and we never got any indication as to how it was split, or what the operating costs were. But it was never £45m for transfers alone.
I understand what you mean about missing out on the Champions League, but I was reassured by the article I linked to in my reply to “Leanne” the other day. That eventuality wouldn’t be anywhere near as bad as feared, we’d not be able to “do a Leeds”. Still not nice, but not the end of the club by any means. In fact it would probably give DIC an opportunity to take over.
Clearly I want the best for the club and if we get proper
owners brilliant. A decent summer spend would also be
welcome.
But I’m not going down the road that is already lining up
the excuses for next season. There is quality already in the
side and I expect more to arrive over the summer.
Wenger has tirelessly demonstrated that the transfer market is as much about judgement and decision-making as it is about
waving the chequebook around.
jim, i’ve got a challenge for you. to create a permanent post where we can set out what tom o hicks has said versus what tom o hicks has done. this could be limited to his co-woenership of Kop holdings, or it could cover his whole career, or at least his ownership of the rangers and stars. i think that this would help to mitigate a lot of the arguing that goes on over tom o. we could do the same thing for DIC, to provide a “balanced” ledger so to speak. it would turn this site into a bit of a wiki. i think that the standard of discussion is usually pretty high, but in truth, what remains relevant to non-regulars would be your longer posts, so much of that discussion gets lost really. what do you think?
The days of Liverpool Football Club being owned and run as a family business have been relegated to the history books. They are no more. Like it or not, no matter who owns the club come the start of next season – DIC, Hicks or an unannounced consortium – they will run it as a business to make profit.
Liverpool fans have been traumatised by this transition – no question – a trauma obscenely exacerbated by the previous owner’s very poor judgement. After years of living under the cover of David Moores’s paternal umbrella, the club was handed off to his suitor of choice when he fell for wooing, promises of wealth and a castle in the sky. Well, it turns out the suitor (or suitors) was a lying, conniving low-life, and instead of keeping those promises, the club’s good name has been pillaged and plundered.
Now, just when it seemed that the patience of a more eager suitor might save the club from decrepitude, we find out that (a) Rafa’s summer transfer budget won’t come close to keeping pace with our rivals in the top four, and (b) Hicks is offering up the future of the club in a car boot sale to hedge fund managers.
There’s an emotional difference to supporters between a benevolent tyrant and an autocratic one – we may not always like or approve of decisions made by an owner who is out to make profit, but we can immediately spot the difference when those decisions are to the benefit of the club as opposed to the benefit of the owner’s bank balance (refer to Ken Bates here). What more will it take to convince Liverpool supporters that Hicks’s continued stewardship is not viable, and his overriding aim of personal profit at any cost is one surely to be borne by the club’s finances for years to come?
Thus, is Gareth Barry being pursued as a replacement for Xabi Alonso because Alonso can fetch more money than it will cost to buy Barry? Is Rafa on the trail of more Bosman deals simply because of their economy and not the end result? (In other words, do we really need another Voronin?) Kiss goodbye to top-four positions, let alone winning the league if Rafa isn’t given the means to strengthen his squad with players of Torres’s quality. Mid-table teams will be galloping up hard and fast – hell, even Sunderland is planning on spending £50million this summer.
So while Tom Hicks whores out the club’s reputation and assets on street corners to any passing moneylender, start banking away every pound coin you can get your hands on to pay for your twice-the-cost ticket and your over-inflated pie if you want to support Hicks’s cost-cutting vision of the future. Don’t think it will happen? Guess what – it already has. Just ask Xabi.
midlands-red: thought your posting was spot on!
“dawg, have you noticed that anytime an American posts on this forum they always seem to take issue with your views?”
Edward,
schvilic backed up my arguments here: http://www.anfieldroad.com/news/200804212960/sick-gillett-invites-dic-to-distract.html/#comments
“how in the f*ck were the Longhorns ever, ever, tom o’s team? ”
Cory,
I never said Hicks was solely responsible for the turnaround at Texas, but he did play a big part in it. Fortune magazine, in 1999: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1999/12/20/270587/index.htm
Do a little homework next time, “mate”.
As Hicks pursues Hedge Funds.
DIC talk about supporter representation on the board, again.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3876142.ece
Don’t blow a gasket yet Jim!
I sense things will be coming to a boil at some point over the next month or two.
Here’s the times story re. DIC and supporter on the board. I tried to send it earlier.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3876142.ece
Things are coming to the boil…..
DIC are saying that if they got in control they would allow the fans on the board.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3876142.ece
“PS- as a Texan, i feel that anyone who would give themselves the tag “texas dawg” has a lot to do to gain any credibility with me”
Why is that, Cory? I am a Texan who went to the University of Georgia. Texan. Dawg. Texas_Dawg. Not very hard.
Dubai International Capital promises Liverpool fans a place on Anfield boardJames Ducker
Dubai International Capital (DIC) would want to appoint a Liverpool supporter to the club’s board of directors if it won control at Anfield, The Times has learnt.
DIC, the private equity investment arm of the Dubai Government, has been in talks with Spirit of Shankly (SOS), the Liverpool supporters’ union, for more than a month about the feasibility of such an arrangement.
Despite Tom Hicks’s insistence that he will not sell his 50 per cent stake in Liverpool, DIC remains confident that it will be able to buy out the American co-owner and his estranged business partner, George Gillett Jr, who also holds a half-stake in the club.
Although talk of supporter representation on the board could be construed as an attempt to curry favour with fans opposed to the American co-owners, sources within DIC insist that it is not a PR stunt and that it is “committed” to the idea.
Neil Atkinson, the chairman of SOS, which held a benefit dinner at the Liverpool Olympia on Sunday evening, attended by more than 1,000 people, was adamant that attempts to put a supporter on the board would require “a great deal of care and consideration”, but that, in essence, such a move would be a positive one.
“We are not a pro-Dubai lobby; however, we take their commitment to supporter representation on the board at face value,” Atkinson said. “They have seemed thoroughly decent so far and we expect them to follow through. It is an opportunity we take very seriously.
“The process of working out how to elect a representative is something that will take a great deal of care and consideration and SOS would want to consult as many supporters and agencies as possible to ensure everything is done correctly and above board.”
if_you_add_the_you_know_whats_here_then_you_will_see_the_storytimesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3876142.ece
i stand by my criticism of your nom de plume. its silly, no matter where you went to school. but since you chose it, you obviously like it, so that is that.
I see Jim got all the mail out of the spam folder.
Jim – Are you going to do a condolences to poor Gaza? See the man got took to hospital again yesterday, its sad but each time he gets dragged to hospital like that I can see hime going out like George Best which would be a shame.
Two weeks ago Dubai were saying they were interested in the fans, possibly SoS, getting some kind of consultation with the board, and this has now evolved to this.
It doesn’t say it’s a voting position on the board (as per the claim in the Echo after talks broke down).
It isn’t a potentially casting voting position on an otherwise split board (as per what seemed to be implied in that claim in the Echo).
So it’s very different to what hadn’t actually been discussed back in March.
That said, it’s still a significant promise, and it’s still progress. Even if they don’t have a vote (which I’d be stunned to see given, unless it was effectively a vote that carried no weight). A place on the board means the secrets of the board meetings can’t be kept from fans. If (imagine a time when relative trivia was what got us worked up) the board were talking about upping the ticket prices or something, they’d not be able to keep it secret. If the board were discussing transfer budgets being slashed, it wouldn’t be a secret. That said, it’s a big responsibility for someone to find a balance between the good of the club, the good of the owner and the desire to keep fans informed.
Now that SoS have chosen to make it public, it’s a little nearer to making Dubai stick to the promises they are making off the record. To go back on this now would be to accuse SoS of lying. Obviously they don’t want to do that.
@Julie. Great post. I was going to write a post myself but I think you’ve pretty much encapsulated my thoughts.
Although as Jim points out Hedge Funds are not neccessarily terrible in implication, that fact is that Hicks wouldn’t have used them had he been able to get finance elsewhere, or so it would seem. Therefore I can only assume that they are more expensive, and therefore more precious money will be siphoned off from LFC’s bank account.
Texas_Dawg: You’re the Hedge Fund expert – If Hicks has approached them as a last resort or as a later resort, is it because they typically demand higher returns?? If not, why didn’t he approach them in the 1st place?
Also are you able to confirm that he is approaching Hedge Funds? And does that therefore mean he has run out of options with the banks?
Don’t want to make a pre-emptive accusation here but could you please give a 100% honest answer here using your expert knowledge in this area?
thanks mate.
Neil Atkinson is taking the right approach ‘taking it on face value’.
It’s a positive thing as you imply Jim and if it is something DIC want to implement then great! If not, then they have shot themselves in the foot.
Martin,
I don’t know anything about Hicks having approached hedge funds. I’m not privy to every move they’ve made.
As far as hedge funds being investors, I don’t think they’d be the natural first choice because they would be more likely to want to cash out their position faster than other types might. But that doesn’t mean long-term hedge fund owners can’t be found either.
But at this point, money isn’t the main issue. Hicks has enough to match DIC’s offer and then some. Gillett just doesn’t want to sell to him… yet.
“i stand by my criticism of your nom de plume. its silly, no matter where you went to school. but since you chose it, you obviously like it, so that is that.”
Cory,
Check the UGA fan boards:
http://uga.rivals.com/forum.asp?sid=&fid=859
Every poster is something + Dawg. Just like everyone at the Baylor boards is something + Bear.
Mate.
Cory: re your post at 7:50pm – that’s nice of you to say, thanks
Texas_Dawg……….I think you’re overstating Hicks financial position. If he had the money he would have approached Gillett a while ago and he would not be approaching Hedge Funds and the risks they entail for his ‘guaranteed return’!
Jim, DIC have a way to go to convince but as Hicks problems become apparent – or certainly the steps he’s willing to take to secure his return from our club – the more he’s becoming the less-preferred option.
As much as I detested that Sky Sports News piece, Tom Hicks Snr or Jnr may need a Paxman style interview to tease out in what direction they’re going in. At the moment it seems like the mercenary route.
DIC, I hope, will be able to test the so-called clause Hicks has to stop the Gillett deal at the end of the May. They will then be scrutinised.
In the meantime, more questions need to be asked of Hicks if Hedge Funds are his new best friend, don’t you agree Jim?
So much negativity. Is the weather really that bad over there? Its like everything has to take on the bleakest possible outlook or the most sinister context. Its like people don’t understand something so they fear it, and try to make sure others do too. Else they use other people’s ignorance to fuel the perception that everything the Americans do is evil. Added to that yet another blatant attempt by DIC to stir up the fans. They must be worried their prophecies aren’t going to come true after all and that its all going to be just like Tom Hicks said it was all along.
I don’t know if hedge funds are anything to be particularly worried about, but I doubt its anything like as bad as portrayed on here. Rather than concluding that Hicks is scraping the barrel so to speak my interpretation is that he has set this fund up as a means of raising investment capital, just like he said he was going to. Again. I suspect all the ‘difficulties raising cash’ and ‘JP Morgan calling in his loans’ stories will just turn out to be a pile of crap. But we’ll see, because I’m happy to admit I’m none the wiser than anybody else.
As for transfer funds, if Rafa gets 30M plus sales then that isn’t too bad. Let’s see who comes in first before we judge too harshly. Last year’s transfers were pretty good overall, even with all the frustrations we’ve heard about since (between Rafa and Parry). So let’s give it a chance. We have to accept that we will *not* be at the level of Chelsea and ManU in the short term so to compete with them we will always need to punch above our weight. Once the new stadium is built and cash flows under control, maybe things will change.
The negativity is borne of fear of the unknown and the possibility that Tom Hicks might actually achieve what he’s set out to do, and that obviously upsets a lot of people. (Rightly or wrongly is another discussion). DIC are playing on that fear to stir up constant unrest at the club, via the press, via their contacts/supporters at the club, and now even via SoS. They are doing it to make it as difficult as they can for Hicks, and they have Gillett on side ever since he realised that Hicks had got one over on him. Maybe there’s something in Arabian culture that says that if you act as though something’s going to happen and believe it strongly enough then it will. I don’t know. But there’s nothing that Hicks has said or done at all that I can recall that suggests the stories about DIC about to get control of LFC are right.
Hop, interesting analysis but tell me: how does Hicks getting involved with Hedge Funds help to take away the debt from the club as he suggested he was to achieve? My understanding of their business model is not to be around for the medium to long term.
It’s not that people are solely being negative about Hicks but given that one set of HF investors have said goodbye to Hicks – there is every chance that he’s had to relax terms further to get another on board. With it being played out publicly it seems even the Hedge Funds are (publicly) toying with him – as they query is financial position………
So, of course, Hicks might get somewhere but at what cost and to whom? Any help, Hop, you can provide on this would be most welcome.
Hop,
I’m mining similar territory to you on transfers. What used
to be “A Team of Carraghers” now has a new mutant brother “A Team of Torreses”.
I expect quality, but I’m not going to get hysterical about it. The right players will automatically want to play for Liverpool. If a player wants to join another club for an extra £10,000 a week, I’d much rather get a younger and hungrier player instead.
Money is important but it’s not everything that this club stands for!
@Hop. The weather has been nice today, actually!
I have to agree with MR on this one. I take your point that those opposed to Hicks will automatically assume the worst of this news and that might be wrong, but I don’t see how borrowing all this money to a group of investors who require a quick (and therefore more expensive annually) return can be seen as a positive thing? If you read Jim’s article again he certainly doesn’t believe that we will have anywhere near £30 million plus player sales:
“The word coming out of Anfield points to Rafa Benítez being given a transfer budget that may work out as the lowest in the top flight”
and in previous article comments:
“not enough to buy a Babel”
You do the math and tell me how after receiving increased tv money and getting to the semi’s of the champions league we haven’t got at least a transfer budget comparable to previous seasons? (i.e. £22 million net). And ask yourself, where is that money going? Who to? and Why?
You state that our “…negativity is borne of fear of the unknown…” No you’re wrong. We may not know about Hedge Funds, but we know that Hick’s borrowing is costing us money in other areas. We also know that If we get to next season having spent £10 million during the summer, then we will also be even further away from United and no closer to winning that elusive 19th.
@Hop:
I’d also like to take you up on this comment:
“Again. I suspect all the ‘difficulties raising cash’ and ‘JP Morgan calling in his loans’ stories will just turn out to be a pile of crap. But we’ll see, because I’m happy to admit I’m none the wiser than anybody else”
Your absolutism in the face of an absolute lack of knowledge baffles me. So you’re emphatically stating it’s “a pile of crap”, but you don’t have a clue whether it is or not?! LOL.
Martin, You even typed it out yourself. I said “I suspect… pile of crap” ie its an expression of my opinion. Just like you have your opinion. Except my opinion happens not to agree with yours.
Bottom line is I think that Hicks will end up in control of LFC and you think that DIC will. Maybe you’re right, I don’t know. But I respect your right to have your opinion.
Edward: I take your point that a player’s passion counts for more than his price tag. If I wanted to support a team of eleven £25m+ players with correspondingly huge egos then I guess that’d make me a Chelsea fan (damn, just writing those words, even in jest, raises the bile in my throat). A team’s chemistry and subsequent success is contingent on more than throwing a bunch of superstars on the pitch. That being said, Liverpool is not going to win the Premiership on passion alone – the strength of the squad needs to be underpinned by key talented and creative players (like Torres and Gerrard) who are able to outplay the opposition and make things happen. My concern is that an enforced (and severe) restriction on Rafa’s transfer budget will limit his ability to inject this creativity into the squad (by way of an extreme example, what if Rafa had not bought Torres and had to work with Voronin as his only new striker?). With virtually every other Premier League club making plans to splash the cash this summer, how successful can Liverpool be next season if Rafa has to scour the bargain bins?
Martin (my alter-ego): I’ll confess a gaping chasm of ignorance when it comes to the intricacies of hedge funds, but I wonder what would happen if Hicks did receive the funding he’s looking for, he does buy Gillett’s shares, he assumes 100% ownership…and then the hedge fund (or funds) decides to pull out of the investment at some point in the not-so-distant future (specifically before the stadium is built). Assuming the responsibility to meet the subsequent financial obligation is on the club, where would that money come from?
“Texas_Dawg……….I think you’re overstating Hicks financial position. If he had the money he would have approached Gillett a while ago and he would not be approaching Hedge Funds and the risks they entail for his ‘guaranteed return’!”
Midlands,
He has approached Gillett. Gillett knows he can cash out through Hicks whenever he would like. He just doesn’t want to yet. The different funds/investors are just ways of off-setting some of the risk, just as is done often in deals of this size. But if he had to carry more risk initially in order to get his majority stake, he has the means to do that.
Julie,
essentially I’m trying to explore our current uncertain reality in the most positive manner possible!
Edward: I should probably adopt the same optimistic perspective, but, then, why turn my back all my years of practice as a pessimist?
“I wonder what would happen if Hicks did receive the funding he’s looking for, he does buy Gillett’s shares, he assumes 100% ownership…and then the hedge fund (or funds) decides to pull out of the investment at some point in the not-so-distant future (specifically before the stadium is built). Assuming the responsibility to meet the subsequent financial obligation is on the club, where would that money come from?”
Julie,
The way it would likely work is that Hicks would own, say, 75%, and the hedge funds would own the rest of the 25%. If and of the funds decide they want to sell their stake in LFC, they have to find a buyer just like any other owner. Hicks knows the importance of the new stadium being built so he is going to want co-owners that are also committed to this. The initial purchase agreement would likely include set financial obligations towards the team, new stadium, etc.
In fact Hicks’ formation of some company eg the Tom Hicks Venture Company (THVC) might be a solution to the problem. Here’s how:
- THVC seeks investors on basis that it will invest in major sports teams for the long term, or whatever
- THVC raises a load of cash
- THVC then offers to buy Gillett’s shares
- Hicks doesn’t exercise his veto
- Gillett can then sell to THVC and not lose face (because he’s not selling to Hicks he’s selling to a company made up of various investors)
- Investors get their returns paid as dividends or whatever arrangements have been made when they invested
- If investors want to sell out of THVC they have to find another buyer for their shares (just like what happens on the stock market)
- So shares or something to that effect are traded in THVC and there’s no immediate risk to THVC (or LFC) to provide cash to investors who want to liquidate
Speculation on my part. I know nothing and all the above might be very naive
Let’s not fall into that trap of comparing Hicks with DIC again to help us make our minds up about Hicks.
I think any hedge fund investment would have to be done with a long-term view. We’re worth probably £400m-£500m now, if sold as is, but with a new stadium we could be worth £1bn. The fear of the unknown is making people worried, plus the use of the words “Glazer” and “Hicks” near each other!
The thing about the transfer budget is based on the current ownership. I’ve got a feeling Hicks would include a bigger budget if he took over, all part of his refinancing.
Rightly or wrongly, a lot of costs have hit the club in the last 18 months that shouldn’t hit it again. Rumours (coming from guess who but still not to be dismissed out of hand) say we’ve spent nearly £20m on stadium design alone. The £44m debt at 31/12/06 as mentioned in the offer document was up to £60m when the takeover was complete three months later. Is that normal January to March debt, or down to costs of the club hiring those advisers who now turn out to have advised us so badly?
Other costs we never take into account are wages and signing on fees, and I think it’s something we should try to do in future. According to the Times rich list Steven Gerrard is now on £120k a week. That’s about £6.5m a year, but when he signed his contract, I can’t remember the length now but I think it was 4 years, we committed ourselves to spending £25m. And that’s not taking into account any bonuses or fees up front for signing it.
Fernando Torres is supposedly on £90k a week. He signed for six years. That’s a commitment of £28m, excluding bonuses, signing on fees, and the initial £18m transfer fee rising to £23m when certain conditions are met.
(WARNING: The example in this next bit is only an example!) If Rafa is in charge of his whole budget he can decide how best to spend it. An extra £30m is good, but it’s also up to Rafa to see if players are worth as much to him as they are costing. Using Gerrard as an example, if Chelsea did come in for him again, maybe offering £30m, with the saving in wages too that’s quite a useful sale financially speaking. Rafa might decide in 12 months that Gareth Barry and Mascherano are good enough in centre-midfield, and that he can get a specialist to play the role Gerrard is now for half of that £30m, on half the wages. With what’s left he buys someone to play on the right too.
As for the rumours about Hicks’ financial position, and still keeping in mind the credit crunch, when you wander around the internet you find story after story from before Christmas about him buying into one company or other. A story was put out that JP Morgan would pull the plug the minute we went out of the CL – they might have, but we’ve not heard about it. I really don’t think his status is as bad as is being made out, but probably not as good as he’d like us to believe either. That said, it’s not his status that’s necessarily bad, it’s the state of the markets in general.
We’re in the magic month of May now. What I want above all else is an end to the 50:50 impasse of ownership. If the stories DIC wanted us to believe are true then we’ve got nothing to worry about, because JP Morgan will force Hicks to sell, Gillett will be able to sell without any block from Hicks and so on. If we get into June without that happening I want some explanations from DIC.
In fact in June, if we’re still in the same state as now, I want explanations from all concerned.
More outrageous PR frm DIC ??
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3876142.ece
More outrageous PR from DIC ??
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3876142.ece
@Texas_Dawg: Did Hicks have the money to buy all of Gillet’s share or just 1% so he could be the majority stakeholder? As most of us – and the press – understand it, he made a play for the 1% which he could well afford.
The situation we’re now in is that Gillett 50% share is for sale. That requires a shed load of money and guarantees. On this basis, has Hicks made a bid without requiring other investors? The reading of the tea-leaves suggests not, hence the Hedge Fund brigade.
I have to say that I have worked in and around the Hedge Fund business before – without studying its intricacies. The clearest thing for them is that money must be made, regardless of impact on others. Hence why they are often based off-shore. It’s profit first. Now this isn’t inconsistent with requiring their teams/investment to do well. But for sure, if the financial markets are looking tricky as they are presently – and who knows for how long – their investment is unpredictable.
Yes, Liverpool could/should be worth £1billion when the stadioum is built, from what we’re told. But we’re not their yet and there arer alot of uncertainties between then and now…….and as has been said the R word ‘Risk’ looms large.
We are where we are but while many find it convenient to forget the pledges, or at least the preception, behind their ownership at the beginning, Hicks is trying to sell us a picture that all in rosy in the garden regarding raising the capital. And it clearly is not. On this basis, the doubts regarding his ownership will continue whether he owns the club 100% or not. One would imagine Freud Communications, one of the biggest PR players in the land, will have their hands full to explain these doubts away.
As for Jim’s point about by June the ownership issue should be resolved or DIC have alot to answer for (I paraphrase, Jim, and hope that doesn’t lead to us having an unnecessary tet-a-tet about it
), I’m not so sure. The reason why Hicks hasn’t resolved matters up until now is because matters are exceptionally intricate/complicated. I suspect the same is being realised by DIC. This saga could go on and on!
Can I ask one question, Jim, as Hicks is so in love with our club and is so wealthy (and plans to be wealthier), why doesn’t he act as a benefactor and hand over £30 million to Rafa to invest in the team?
Georgia Peaches,
your attitude to how supporters should react to tom o’s sole ownership of Liverpool Football Club reminds me of Clayton Williams’ horrible comment in the 1990 Texas gubernatorial race. Williams joked to reporters that rape was like the weather, saying, “as long as it’s inevitable, you might as well lie back and enjoy it.” thankfully Williams lost to Democrat Ann Richards.
now i know that it is quite extreme to compare the two, but like ive said earlier, i am not going to buy that f*ck’s weetabix and pay for him to own “my” club. that is the only real option open to those of us who are implacably opposed to him.
dont just accept your fate!
@midlands-red: I don’t want a tet-a-tet with you MR, don’t worry. I’m smiling as I write this!
I’ve never said TH is in love with the club. And he’d have to be to put £30m into it now, because unless I’m mistaken the only way he could do that would be for it to be a donation. GG wouldn’t sanction it as a loan or as an investment because it could have an impact on his control. And if the club was eventually sold TH wouldn’t get it back then either, at best he’d get half of it back.
I still want to know what the delay is from the Tom Hicks side too. But I stand by what I say that if there isn’t a resolution by the end of May then DIC need to explain why. Even if they do it through the same channels as before.
In fact some honesty now would be refreshing. If it’s bad news, if they can’t force Hicks out, if they won’t buy 50%, if they won’t raise their offer, let’s be told.
But they’ve spent a lot of time if not money pushing things as far as this. They’ve already started tentatively looking at their staff should they take over for example. So there are signs they’ve still got an intention to push for this.
In fact when you think about the good of the club, you start seeing a possibility that rushing this deal might not be the best anyway.
Forget their intentions in this, think more of the consequences.
1: Say Hicks could buy now, but at silly interest, so he’s going to wait until mid-July when his best available option is ready to go. If he buys now, we’re saddled with more interest even than now. Wait until July and it’s a deal related to profits and so doesn’t force us to pay anything in a bad year.
2: DIC could spend some more of their overall budget buying Hicks out now. Add 50% to their offers, let’s see how long the owners hold out then. But that leaves the rest of their overall budget pretty close to used up, and we’ve no spare money even under DIC. Or they wait, knowing that Hicks will eventually have to sell say when the refinance is due in July 2009.
One bad summer for transfers might be the sacrifice we make to have good summers in future.
Whatever happens, I hope it’s the right deal!
Sam Wallace from the Indie seems pretty sure Barry wants to play for us next year and that he will turn down his new contract offer at the Villa. He also reckons Maik Taylor is on his way to replace Itandje.
Jim re your last post on rushing things. There’s a lot of sense in what you say. We shouldn’t place our desire for a quick resolution ahead of getting the best resolution. First rule of negotiating: make sure the clock is on your side.
@Jofrad: Hello Jofrad.
We’ve already discussed this I think, not that the discussion has to end there.
Get the negative stuff out of the way first – it’s not been said whether it’s a voting position, or if the vote would carry any weight, so it’s not quite what was claimed via the Echo a few weeks ago, when a fan with a vote would have effectively have got the casting vote on an otherwise split board. It’s also something that they were still not saying they’d do even a couple of weeks ago, so it’s evolved since then.
Now for the positive side.
A member on the board even without a vote can still have a say. Sometimes decisions made by board members aren’t made just to p*** fans off, even if it feels like it. Sometimes a slight tweak can make no difference to the owner but massive differences to fans. If a bad decision was made reluctantly, the fan can either confirm it or make gestures behind the CEO’s back to suggest that wasn’t the case at all!
And it won’t be PR as long as it is carried out. It’s not got to be their choice. If they want to keep David Moores on then that’s fine – but he’s not a fan representative. If they want to recruit an ex player, then again that’s fine – but he’s not a fan representative. It should be down to supporters. And hopefully SoS will have opened up their bank account and started accepting overseas and other members by then if it’s to be SoS who help pick the candidates.
It’s a good move by SoS to make it public like this. If DIC were using it to get favour from SoS they’re in a funny position now. Either they put a fan on the board, admit they lied, or accuse SoS of lying. Whichever way you look at it this is a good move. If they’re the great people a lot of fans assume they are, this will go ahead without them blinking. If not then we might suss them out a bit sooner.
It also – if they weren’t expecting this to be something they’d get held to – makes them realise that they can’t mess about with our emotions. Promise us something, even suggest it as a possibility, and we’ll expect it, just like we did with Hicks and Gillett.
Where SoS need to reconsider their strategy a little in my view is in their dealings with Tom Hicks. As far as I know they’ve never offered him the same level of dialogue as they have with DIC. They’ve had a little bit of contact, but not to the same extent. If they tried, they could get similar promises from Hicks made into “official” promises too. I think they’re relying heavily on the DIC premise that Hicks won’t take over, that he can’t afford it, Gillett won’t sell etc etc. That’s all well and good if it proves to be the case, but they should be trying to have similar meetings with Hicks just in case it isn’t. There’s no saying Hicks would have the same kind of meeting, but there’s a bit of a dangerous precedent being set here (in my view) by not at least giving each party an equal say. And if everything said about Hicks is true, then surely this would be the point where they could pretty much prove it. Paxman-style questioning, even if off the record, might just catch Hicks out. But they’d need to remove the pre-conceptions first, to make sure they didn’t waste the opportunity.
Let’s face it, if the general consensus about DIC and Hicks is true, wouldn’t a fan on the board of a Hicks-controlled club be more important than one on a DIC-controlled board?
” Other costs we never take into account are wages and signing on fees, and I think it’s something we should try to do in future. ”
Jim – When you sign a player you do not pay all the fee in one go (FACT) you pay the transfere fee over the course of the comtract in istallments. So the fact that LFC may have a liquidity problem should not be a hinderance in the transfere market, especially with the new TV money coming in. If their is a lack of transfere activity then it is because someone is shafting the club big time. We could easily go out and spend big on someone like Villa because the transfere fee is paid of over a few years.
@Anthony Fakir: It sounds like I’m disagreeing for the sake of it here, but we don’t always pay for transfers in instalments. Different deals are done in different ways, although I think it’s fair to say it’s the norm.
To go out an buy a £30m player now, on say four-years of instalments, could perhaps cost us £15m now, then £5m for the next three years. But we’ve still got all the other instalments to find in that case – like the next chunk for Torres or the Babel, or even Cisse if that’s not all been paid off yet. And we still need £15m now.
Jim – Yes, but then I see no reason why Rafa can’t put one of his second rate squad players that he was going to buy on hold, use that money to bring a top player in. The team needs more players like Torres, because you have seen how he has justified his price tag. All the money that is coming in of the TV deals is got to be going somwhere, so if its not going to go on at least one player worth 20 million + then I think that someone is taking the piss. LFC should be able to buy at least 1 player worth 20 million.
@Anthony Fakir: We don’t know yet if the awful budget I spoke of will turn out to be true.
I don’t know where the money goes to be honest. Take the year we got Dirk Kuyt. It turned out in the end that Moores had to lend the club £10m, which he obviously got back a little later. TV deals are better now, but how much better?
The club’s a private company now though, so I doubt we’ll ever find out how the money gets shared around. The old accounts are still on the official website somewhere if anyone’s bored enough to see what kind of funding we had before.
jim,
i think the salient point on tom o is not his current financial position, which as you say is probably ok, but the condition of the market. and that condition is radically different from when GH bought the club last year. he is resorting to hedge funds (which are going to charge more for the use of their money) because he has not had any joy with banks.
why is DIC fighting a PR fight against tom o? in order to scare off potential investors. why is tom o now fighting back rather than sitting back and taking it like he had been doing in dec/jan/feb? because he has not been able to raise the cash needed to buy out gillett.
another point- while the sale preemption agreement may not have a strict timeline such as 90 days, etc, i am quite sure that it has something like a reasonable time/while putting together the money to buy clause. now what that would mean would probably come down to a court’s decision.
jim- why no response to my permanent post on tom o and DIC proposal? at least an up or down would be nice
Jim – I know next season that if Stoke come up don’t score and get beat every game they will walk away with 30 million. The money you get for comming bottom is now the same that you would get for comming top. For comming top you get in the region of 60 million, also the champion league TV rights are up for renewal with the BBC looking to out bid ITV, which I think will be a good thing as we will be able to listen to the masters themselves (Hansen and Lawrensen) discussing LFC. They haven’t been negotiated yet but they will soon. I heard allerdice talking yesterday that the money that was being mentioned for even hopeless players is rediculous. I understand what you are saying but I believe we should be able to buy big at least once, and I reckon we will. I do not think Rafa would tow the line and hang around if he was not going to be backed.
Interesting article on United’s finances!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/06/manchesterunited.premierleague
@Cory: Just re-read your suggestion. I’m half-heartedly setting a forum up and something like that would probably fit better in there. The biggest issue with it though is that we’re not necessarily comparing like-with-like if we compare Hicks-Gillett with Hicks. We don’t know, and probably never could know, how much of the past 15 months would have been different under Hicks on his own.
A difference between last year and this year is of course the amount of money needed to buy the club. The duo borrowed £298m a year ago, and Hicks was responsible for securing about £150m of that. Now he needs to find £375m at least if he’s to do it alone.
We don’t know what hedge funds are going to charge, so it’s wrong to say “they will charge more” – but it’s probably pretty fair to say “they will likely charge more”.
I’m not disputing what you say about him not being able to find the cash – but it’s still just an opinion, even if it’s based on the evidence around us relating to other people’s finances and so on.
The lack of any visible signs of finding the cash are worrying though, you’d have hoped he’d have got the funds by now to end this nightmare of the 50-50 ownership.
As for the 90-day rules and the use of the courts and so on, I don’t doubt at all that any agreement without a limit on it could be challenged in court.
But it can’t be challenged if it’s not yet got to the stage where Hicks actually needs to block it.
@Anthony Fakir: To be fair I think you’ve got to remember that Stoke don’t have any players on £120k-a-week contracts either.
@Edward: Thanks Edward – not nice reading at all on a quick skimming. Not a nice photo either.
” Anthony,
Hicks/Gillett have more than doubled their initial investment in Liverpool in just over a year. Hedge fund managers are just investors looking for desired returns on their money just like anyone else. And I don’t think there’s anyone in the world that would turn down the doubling of their money in one year. If they believe Liverpool is going to continue to increase in value at a rate even close to that, why wouldn’t many of them want to invest?
I’m not sure what exactly you think hedge funds are (other than something scary and sinister), but they aren’t what you think apparently. ”
Dawg – The only thing that has put the price of Liverpool FC up is the debt that is tied up with the club. If anyone was to buy the club from Tweedle Dum and Tweedly Dee then you would find that the majority of the 500 million would go to the banks. So the fact that the club has increased to 500 million is slightly miss leading to say the least, and any hadge fund will see that the only thing that has changed about the club to make it go up in price is the debt tied up with the club.
” To be fair I think you’ve got to remember that Stoke don’t have any players on £120k-a-week contracts either. ”
Jim – On top of that, when they get relegated they also get parachute payments which are worth a fortune. I thinks its good to see a club like Stoke comming up, also Bristol City and Hull City could possibly come up. Hull are the only city in the country that have never had a football team in the top flight.
@Hop who said:
“Martin, You even typed it out yourself. I said “I suspect… pile of crap” ie its an expression of my opinion. Just like you have your opinion. Except my opinion happens not to agree with yours.
Bottom line is I think that Hicks will end up in control of LFC and you think that DIC will. Maybe you’re right, I don’t know. But I respect your right to have your opinion.”
Actually Hop I have to admit that after posting it I did realise that you used the word “suspect” so stating you are “emphatically” stating it is false, so sorry about that. However the point I’m making still rings true. How can you suspect something you have no idea about? But you are right, you’re absolutely entitled to your opinion, obviously.
Actually, I don’t think DIC are more likely to get in! I believe Hicks is the front runner at this stage. For all the objection to him, I actually believe what Texas_Dawg says about Hicks having got the money to offer the same as DIC to Gillett. I wouldn’t like to put my house on it, but if I had to guess, given that Rafa seems to be backing him, I would guess that Hicks is the most probable to win control. It’s difficult because we don’t know what DIC’s intentions are, and I am fully aware of that, I don’t want Hicks though so as I’ve said before DIC win by default which is a pretty ridiculous manifestation of the situation we are in.
Jim – With regards to the new Chamions League TV rights comming through. Well I have heard people saying that if people think that there is a big differnce between the top 4 and the rest now when the new Champions league deals are negotiated that gap is going to become even bigger. I think that the BBC are going to bid about 750 million. I dont know what they are worth now, but I know that all the countrys bid separatly for the champions league with the England having to pay the highest because of the popularity of football here. Do you know if the money that is bid in this country is split thoughtout the whole of europe fairly or is it split unevenly in favour to the English teams, or does it all go to the English teams?
Malcome Glazer looks like he has come out of a mourmin commune.
@Julie who said:
“I’ll confess a gaping chasm of ignorance when it comes to the intricacies of hedge funds, but I wonder what would happen if Hicks did receive the funding he’s looking for, he does buy Gillett’s shares, he assumes 100% ownership…and then the hedge fund (or funds) decides to pull out of the investment at some point in the not-so-distant future (specifically before the stadium is built). Assuming the responsibility to meet the subsequent financial obligation is on the club, where would that money come from?”
To be honest I don’t know Julie! I’m in the dark as much as you I’m afraid. The Dawg did give an answer and I’m sure he’s correct to a degree. My feeling is that I wouldn’t really be that concerned about us doing ‘a leeds’. Although it is a concern, I don’t really think that would happen to us. (cue some angry ripostes!) However I really believe (and fear) that all this borrowing will signifcantly inhibit the amount of spare cash needed to progress in the interim before the stadium is built.
Martin – If what dawg says is true then why wont any of the hedgefunds that have already backed Hicks give him the remaining £300? I stand by what I said and I believe that this is Hicks last throw of the dice and that the Hedgefunds will not be interested in what Hicks has to offer.
Thanks Martin. Maybe you and I aren’t really that far apart in our thinking after all. What you summarised there is a fair indication of what I think too.
The bit where we have disagreed, this is how I see it. In the past few months, say since when Gillett broke his silence, we’ve had both Gillett and Hicks do interviews and go on the record with various statements. As far as I can recall they haven’t said anything in those statements that’s turned out to be a lie – at least I can’t think of anything off the top of my head. On the other hand I don’t think DIC have gone on the record about anything, or certainly not very much. I don’t recall any interviews or anything from any of their representatives, just the odd quote here and there in the press. Yet for the same time period respectable newspapers have carried stories almost daily about how they are about to take over the club, how Hicks can’t raise money or whatever. And again, to my recollection, I’m not aware of any of those stories turning out to be true. That’s why I say I suspect the latest round of stories about Hicks’ financial difficulties are a pile of crap – because I suspect that their source has a pro-DIC interest, and because a lot of what the papers have said on the subject recently does appear to have come to fruition – at least not yet.
@Edward. Great link with a great deal of pertinence to the current situation.
@Jim, Does this link not scare you a little bit?! Man U have already got to where we want to be in terms of stadia and explotation of all available revenue streams and yet they are still making record losses! I understand it is not as simple as I am making out, but the reality is that could well end up in a similar position, and thats without taking into account the fact that we must harbour all these debts initially without the increased stadium capacity revenue!
I know that you make a point of stating that we should not judge Hicks by or in comparison with DIC, but surely if DIC as it is assumed (or at least as I assume) purchase the club themselves and only loan for the stadium, that has got to be better than a loan for the whole lot? Apologies for falling in that trap, but given that we are at the ownership crossroads it is pretty natural to think in this way, if you know what I mean? If we have no choice, which we don’t, then fine, we’ll hold Hicks to his promises and hope for the best, but i’d hate to think that we should just disregard DIC’s prospective merits just because we don’t have a choice.
@ Anthony Fakir: I’m not sure all of the Hedge Funds have turned down Hicks yet have they? I think it really depends on how Hicks got on with previous investors – he could of found the money he needs and is looking to use Hedge Funds as an extra means to finding cash or spreading risk, or he could have had no luck at all and is using them in a desparate bid to find the cash he actually needs. I really don’t know! With regard to Texas Dawg, I don’t personally see the benefit of him lying to us. If Hicks hasn’t got the money he will get found out eventually, Dawg knows by now that nothing he says is going to make us support Hicks, so I just don’t see the point in him lying. I fully appreciate that he is coming from a pro-Hicks perspective given that he is life-long friends with Tom’s son, but I think this is an occasion where there is little to gain from lying.
My concern is that I have learnt from bitter personal experience from my former student days that borrowing lots of money is actually inhibitive at least in the short term, if you can’t afford the money for the whole lot in the first place. It could be a means to an end but don’t expect the means to be any good!
@Hop. That’s a fair point mate. I agree that the problem is that we haven’t reached the end zone yet to determine absolutely who is right and who is wrong. Hopefully, we’ll know soon enough! This is killing me. So consumed by all of this I am I had a dream 2 nights ago that I inherited 3 billion pounds, bought the club, built a 100,000 seater stadium and spent excessive money on players before handing the clubs back to Share Liverpool for £500 a vote. What a beautiful dream.
Apologies in advance for having the monopoly of the posts (what are days off work for eh?!) but…
http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11661_3528528,00.html
I’m thinking a cut price Villa, SIlva, and Joaquin would massively improve us in areas we most need improving! In fact these 3 would be near my 1st choice in all 3 positions. Come on Rafa! and come on Hicks – loosen YOUR purse strings!
@Hop and Martin – I think we shoulldn’t discount everything as media speculation and anti-hicks/pro-DIC bias or the other way round.
It’s clear that Hicks want to buy the whole club. Because he’s said it!
It’s also clear that Gillett will not sell his 50% share to Hicks. Because he’s said it.
It’s clear that DIC will not pay over the odds. Because they have said it.
So each party has been positioning themselves around these messages in the media.
As much as it would be a simple theory to say most of these stories – hence journalists and editors – are pro-DIC/anti-Hicks, I think not. At the moment, any news on the ownership issue regardless of where it comes from will sell copy or create interest – so I can’t see the benefit for each newspaper of going one way or another rather than telling it for what it is.
Ok, they’ll have their favoured sources – as we’ll have journalists/newspapers or even contacts we trust in more – but they have to careful what they write.
One more thing, in terms of my love for all things Tom Hicks
…..
…….It’s clear he’s looking for finance to support whatever deal he can get – which is why DIC were approached less than a year ago and the City is being flooded (alright a bit over the top
) with requests by him or a begging bowl seeking more cash. I’m not sure how or why this being questioned by some. The reasons for his requests and whether this will affect his plans for the club? Well, did you note that the Guardiannarticle also mentioned that even the Glazers, for all Manchester United’s income streams, are struggling to raise cash in the current credit market. So why not Hicks too?
My view is, and remains, that he can see what he wants from the deal (ie a significant share of £1bn) and will do anything possible to hang on. He reminds of those young couples who get a foot on the housing ladder at any cost and, when their costs are too significant they still carry on with the debt until their house is repossessed – when they should have got out when and what they could!
Here’s the story
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2008/may/06/manchesterunited.premierleague
@Martin: A lot of these things scare me. They talk about things that make a whooshing sound as they pass over my head sometimes! Throw the words “hedge fund” at some people and they know what it means, even if it’s just their positive or negative experience of such things. I have to go and look it all up and try and get a crash course in it all.
And the trouble is, if I asked 20 city “sources” what it means, without telling them why I ask, I’d probably get 20 different takes on it. If I then told them why I asked I’d probably get another 20 different takes on it.
To sum it up – it might be good, it might be bad. It might be really bad. It probably won’t be really good. But we don’t know without seeing the terms on offer.
Given the Glazers’ approach, it sounds worrying. You hear things that refer to an equivalent of interest at double-figure percentages and you start to worry. But then you realise that if this is how Manchester United go about getting the funds to buy their players these days, if we want to compete then maybe we’ve got to bite that bullet too.
My head spins with it all.
I know that if DIC are going to take over, rather than Dubai, then they too could easily choose to use similar methods as partial funding. In fact, following a little bit of a natural progression, how would people feel if they decided to restructure their offer, upping the bid to £600m but with £200m of it coming from hedge funds?
What if we didn’t know they’d done it that way either? Obviously info leaks out, but the way the club’s structured now I’m not so sure they’d have to disclose it – Hicks or DIC – if they chose this option.
If the Glazers had turned their business into private companies, none of that info from today would be known by anyone outside their financial circle.
And you’re right in saying we shouldn’t dismiss DIC either. No way. We should be looking at what they’re saying, what they’ve said, what they’ve done elsewhere. We should be holding them to this idea of it being higher up the chain than DIC too, that’s probably more important now than a fan on the board.
It’s understandable that there’s a deep mistrust of everything Tom Hicks says, and a pretty massive level of trust for DIC.
It’s going to end up with me attracting some criticism again, because I don’t think I’m explaining this too well (still have the angry words of “Leanne” et al ringing in my ears). I don’t mean to say, “we can’t do anything, so let’s sit here and wait to see”, I mean let’s try not to worry, try to keep focussed on what’s being said, if it’s backed up with evidence or not, if it’s coming from one enemy about their opponent, and so on.
We might not have a choice but we should try and work out as best we can what the picture is, then we can ask the right questions whenever an opportunity arises.
@Martin: Sounds a great dream – probably something we’d all do if some unknown relative left us billions. I just can’t believe you only built a 100k seater when you had 3billion to spend. Martin out! Martin out!
“@Texas_Dawg: Did Hicks have the money to buy all of Gillet’s share or just 1% so he could be the majority stakeholder? As most of us – and the press – understand it, he made a play for the 1% which he could well afford.”
Midlands,
Hicks has offered to buy all of Gillett’s stake (from there he would sell a portion to other investors). Gillett just doesn’t want to sell yet.
“Martin – If what dawg says is true then why wont any of the hedgefunds that have already backed Hicks give him the remaining £300?”
Anthony,
He is not looking for them to give him money. He is just lining up investors to own a portion of the team, off-setting his risk, once Gillett is ready to sell.
Hop
I think you need to look into how DIC operate.They aren’t in any way like the Yanks especially Hicks, they don’t go around blowing their own trumpet about investments or sales.They don’t go around putting their feet in their mouths. Comparing them to the Yanks is like comparing chalk and cheese. Its totally inconcievable to think that DIC will make any statements regarding what they are going to do with LFC,when they do eventually own it. As Julie stated in a previous post (or something similair) its like me going around claiming I am going to buy my neighbours home and saying I will make various changes to it when in reality I don’t even own their home. DIC are classy operators they won’t lower themselves to the level of hicks especially now Sheikh Mohammed is said to be getting personally involved. The stories appearing in the papers are just that “stories”. Everytime a paper runs a story about how DIC will take over LFC the paper sells more so its in their interest to keep repeating the same headline DIC won’t deny it because its true.Just look at the hits on this site alone everytime Jim does a match report there aren’t many comments but as soon as a story is posted regarding hicks or DIC the post count rises.Its just a matter of time before DIC get the ball rolling and when they do no one will stand in their way certainly not hicks he just doesn’t have the money and is getting more and more desperate to such an extent he is now prepared to risk the whole future of our beloved club for the sake of his ego.
DIC are being slated but hicks will take our club down.
@Martin: Maybe David Moores should do a Kia whatsisname and buy the players for us, lending them to the club. We must know all the loopholes in that kind of deal by now.
@Fred: One of the busiest times for this site was back when Steven Gerrard nearly joined Chelsea. Dark days of a different variety.
What is now a new line of “promise” making for DIC is the use of SOS to get their feelings known. The difference there is that SOS can hold them to it more than can be done from a claim made via a paper.
@midlands-red: Good analogy MR, the only thing is that Tom Hicks isn’t like a “young couple”, he’s a lot of experience in all of this. I’m sure he’s been through previous market crashes too, although I’ve no idea what he did or how he dealt with it.
I remember those dark days well.
With regards having a fan on board I wondered if perhaps it might be someone like Moores himself or someone like Dalglish, someone respected by all the fans.
I love the DIC news about putting a fans’ rep on the board. Hilarious.
DIC board members: “Here is what we are going to do…”
Fans’ rep: “I don’t like that idea. I propose that we do _____ instead…”
DIC board members: “Ha ha ha… how cute, Fan. Your proposal is duly noted. {{chuckle}} Now, as we were saying, here is what we are going to do…”
What nonsense.
Intresting article to a point Jim but surely we should be aware that the three of them (Hicks, Gillett and DIC) are planning and constructing stories to be leaked almost daily. The position as I understand it is that Hicks and Gillett can’t agree on anything, which is why Gillett won’t sell to Hicks. This lack of trust can hardly have been helped by Hicks revealing it was George who wanted Klnnsman and that Rick knew all about it. It is my understanding that the Gillett shares will be sold by the end of June to DIC (the Hicks 1st option runs out at the end of May) thus forcing Hicks into 50/50 ownership with DIC. This has lead to the world’s 2nd least favourite texan (no prizes for guessing who’s 1st even though he was born in one the North Eastern states) playing hardball, leaking meetings with Rafa over transfer plans etc. It’s hard to imagine Hicks, who was at the Klinnsman meeting, saying anything bad about Rafa, I’m waiting for Voronin to be called a class signing it’s got that bad! This of course is pushing up the price (he hopes) he’ll get off DIC, my understanding is that by the start of the new season new owners (DIC) will be in complete control of LFC and hopefully we’ll be able to get on with winning trophies. YNWA
Liverpool have been given the go ahead to build a 71000 seater stadium look at the Echo web site
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/05/06/liverpool-s-new-stadium-approved-64375-20868843/
heres the link
its for a 60000 seater stadium
@Dawg. Your defence of the indefencible is admirable. Maybe your time should be better spent telling your mate and his dad to get out of our club. He’s not wanted around these parts and he’s dragging our club down to his level! DIC may not be a perfect solution but given the choice 99% of Liverpool fans would prefer them in charge rather than your loud mouth obnoxiuos friend. Long live the Liverpool way respect, honesty,commitment and not washing dirty linen in public!!
” I’m not sure all of the Hedge Funds have turned down Hicks yet have they? I think it really depends on how Hicks got on with previous investors ”
Martin – What I meant to say is now Hicks has been contacting a number of Hedge funds, but the hedgefunds that Dawg told me about where different ones to the one’s mentiond in the papers yesterday. I do not believe that the hedgefunds would be interested in entering into somthing which would yeild them such a high return over such a long period of time. I also don’t believe that the deal would fit in to what Hedgefunds normally deal with, I think that they would see it as a waste of time. If you look at the links that Jim posted with the report you will see that it confirms that hedgefunds are normally quite choosey about where they invest. The only people who I believe would be interested in going into business with Hicks would be private investors, which is why i believe that hicks has got no chance of being able to purchase the club 100%.
A couple of thoughts rolling around in my head like bowling balls…
1. Given Dubai/DIC’s enormous financial resources and influence, I suspect it’s possible (much like Och-Ziff, in Jim’s original article above) that they could exert pressure to prevent all manner of lenders or investors from partnering up with Hicks.
2. If Dubai/DIC are holding talks with SOS or any other supporters group about a supporter’s presence on the board, in a backhanded way this says a fair bit about their confidence in winning the prize. Dubai/DIC have been extremely circumspect – publicly, anyway – about their intentions towards and for the club. By letting this small kitten out of the bag, it tips their hand as far as their belief in their ultimate success. The revelation is about more than just PR.
Julie R.O.B. (for it is she…)
I agree with your points at 2.54pm.
I must admit, my knowledge on heldge funds is a bit light but more and more of these are going under…some of the bigger players in the states have recently closed shop.
Just the phrase “hedge funds” scares me.
p.s. it looks like Rafa’s pre-season planning is already being ambushed with both Monster and Lucas wanting to participate in the Oympics
If Hicks builds his stadium and values the club at £1bn with £700m debt on it he walks away with £300m. However, I really don’t see who is going to pay £1bn for the club. If they do its almost certainly going to be another debt based purchase which means the club will be be paying even more interest than under Hicks. Where will the extra revenue come from to pay the extra interest payments. I really fear for this club and I feel very sorry for the genuine supporters who are going to get pushed away by increased prices to pay this debt. Where is it going to end? We need long term stability. The only way is for us fans to somehow wrestle our club back.
Please keep supporting Share Liverpool – we need to keep the dream alive otherwise we are at the mercy a dark forces we cannot control.
Look around the signs are out there.
Valencia – Since 2000 Spanish Champions, Uefa Cup Chanmpions, Champions League finalists – Selling players below their value in order to stay afloat.
Leeds Utd – Since 2000 Champions League semi finalists, Uefa Cup semi finalists, 3rd in Premier League- now in League 1. Sold players under value, sold ground under value, sold club for virtually nothing.
Corinthians – World Club Champions, Brazilian champions – now second division.
All because of unsustainable debt being put on the club.
Man Utd – the economic powerhouse of world football now £764m in debt. Making losses of £54m a year despite winning the premier league and bringing in a record revenue of £210m.
We are not immune to financial collaspe.
@Texas_Dawg: “I love the DIC news about putting a fans’ rep on the board. Hilarious.
DIC board members: “Here is what we are going to do…”
Fans’ rep: “I don’t like that idea. I propose that we do _____ instead…”
DIC board members: “Ha ha ha… how cute, Fan. Your proposal is duly noted. {{chuckle}} Now, as we were saying, here is what we are going to do…”
What nonsense.”
That made me laugh actually. Although isn’t there a similar idea in the US with a kind of season ticket holders consultation group? Not similar as in a seat on the board, but similar as in a group of fans getting to have some input. (Even if it is just duly noted).
@Yogi: There’s still a lot of dispute as to the option running out at the end of May. And Voronin was signed before the owners bought the club, before DIC pulled out the first time in fact. (He signed his pre-contract agreement in the January, so the deal was already in place, he actually arrived in the summer.
If you believe DIC’s version of events they’re convinced that they’ll get 100% and soon. But it’s still just their version, I can’t see a reason for their unshakeable confidence that Hicks will sell to them in the end.
@Jim who said:
“In fact, following a little bit of a natural progression, how would people feel if they decided to restructure their offer, upping the bid to £600m but with £200m of it coming from hedge funds?
Good question JB. I would probably treat it in the same way as I am reacting to Hicks, that is concern without real knowledge. I guess you could argue that 200 million in loans is better than 350+ for the purcahse of the club? You could also make the case that if DIC used one of the Hedge Funds they had a share in it would add more security, you could also argue that DIC have much deeper pockets should something go wrong to rectify things, whether they wanted to or not is another thing all together. I would hope that DIC would decide that the money they have already is enough to purchase the club. Fundamentally, thats the difference isn’t it?…DIC, whether they plan to or not, have the ability to finance things as and how they see fit, whereas Hicks depends upon loans to find the finance he needs. I wouldn’t mind tbh if DIC used loans to purchase the stadium. I accept that they are in it to make a profit, and the benefits of the stadium would effectively off-set the needs to finance it. It’s the principle of the club having to pay for the right to own itself which I really object to (but you know that already as not the 1st time i’ve mentioned it!)
“That made me laugh actually. Although isn’t there a similar idea in the US with a kind of season ticket holders consultation group? Not similar as in a seat on the board, but similar as in a group of fans getting to have some input. (Even if it is just duly noted).”
I’ve heard of similar movements or attempts in the US, but I’m not sure if any have resulted in a seat on the board. It wouldn’t surprise me though if some have. I certainly don’t think this PR move is unique to DIC, PL football, etc.
But this stuff is all pretty much just symbolic. Does a board need some guy at the table in order to tell them that, say, most fans are strongly opposed to a coach being fired, a player not being kept, etc.? If so, then their organization is so poorly run that it is almost surely beyond the help of Mr. Fan and his lone vote.
Everybody with regards to all the storys that are being reported that LFC are going to buy the Barca defender Abidal is not true just heard on Radio City that LFC have not even had scouts looking at him, there is no truth to the story.
“its for a 60000 seater stadium”
Anthony,
The 60,000 was requested and approved to get the stadium under construction sooner. There approval also leaves room for plans to be expanded after construction starts. The final product will still be around 73,000.
” “its for a 60000 seater stadium”
Anthony,
The 60,000 was requested and approved to get the stadium under construction sooner. There approval also leaves room for plans to be expanded after construction starts. The final product will still be around 73,000. ”
Dawg – I know, I seen the story on LFC live and it said a 71000 seater stadium. Then in order to be the first person to land the scoop on the site I posted it without reading it. Then I went to look at the story and get the link where I seen that it was only a 60000 seater stadium, if you look below that post you will see where I corrected myself.
Dawg – Who do you reckon will win between Clinton and Obama? And who do you want to win the presidential elections?
Dawg – How much are the TV deals worth per year in American sport, and how do they compare to the premier league?
@Jim,
Hahahaha!
Actually I lied, the stadium is going to be down-graded (can you change that to “different”) to the original AFL design @ 60,000.
Furthermore, although I implied there would be no debt, actually the debt will be partly placed on the club and partly on the holding company – ‘Does This All Feel A Bit Familiar Holdings.” Unfortunately, despite promising the fans that I would back Rawww-for (rafa) to buy ‘Snoopy’ if he asked for it, unforunately all he is going to get is ‘Peanuts’.
I’d also like to state that i’m definitely going to back Rawww-for. I believe he’s the man to take us forward. Mind you, if I catch wind from ‘The Daily Star’ that he might be off to Real Madrid then I might need to make contingency plans, just in case you understand. I’ve never heard of him myself but I hear Rick Astley is a very impressive individual – word has it he’s Never gonna give you up, Never gonna let you down, Never gonna run around ,and desert you…
Anyway, I’m confident that I can make this the best ‘franchise’ in the world as i’ve discovered a mysterious material to make official LFC mugs out of.(a material, not scousers).The brilliance is that the moment you finish your beverage of choice, the mug implodes! …and you have to buy another one, which is why whenever you see one, it’s brand spanking shiny new. Because I believe that all Liverpool supporters drink gullibility juice regularly, selling enough mugs to make me even richer shouldn’t be a problem!
GOOD NEWS!
(Reg the new stadium…)
Liverpool City Council Planning Committee has made a smart (aka cheeky) moves!
Read between the lines people… long story short… the ball now is in hicks court!
I believe with this moves, the LCC now has a say in this whole saga since the approval has been given and with current world credit crunch… the pressure now is in Hicks camp to ‘put the spade on the ground’.
Kop Holdings, KFC or whatever the joined company that owns LFC right now is believe to have only 60mil to start building the stadium (which might be less if reports are true that the drawing by HKS costs 20mil).
That’s kinda 320mil short, doesnt it?
Well, give me your acc no. hicks… i’ll contribute a tenner, not!
” I believe with this moves, the LCC now has a say in this whole saga ”
Massive RED – Liverpool City Council can start to demand answers as public money in the form of grants is going into the development. They can threaten to take the grants away if building does not start soon.
Has anyone heard how Freddy Flintoff got away with driving at 87MPH in a 50MPH zone, takes the piss!
In response to those cynical comments above at the supposed hilarity of having a supporter on the board, and just how untenable they assume it will be, I’ll offer a personal example of how such a situation was effective. Years ago, I sat on a volunteer board for a housing co-operative for people dealing with social, psychiatric and health debiltations. In addition to the six of us from the outside, who each brought in expertise on management issues, the board also had two residents from the co-op. The two resident representatives were included to speak on behalf of issues that affected people whose day-to-day lives were impacted by the decisions of the outsiders. If ever there was an order of business where confidentiality was paramount, then the meeting went in camera and the two resident reps left the room.
I realise there’s a world of difference, business-wise, between this small housing co-op and Liverpool Football Club. Nonetheless, the principle could still remain the same. Whether or not that LFC supporter would have voting rights, they would still be in a position to speak on behalf of those who give their money, time and passion over to the club. Maybe it’ll be Kenny Daglish, maybe it’ll be Rogan Taylor, maybe it’ll be Josephine Scouser from down the pub (had to give us girls a fair chance there). It’s elitist to assume that someone from outside the usual corporate board paradigm would have nothing to contribute.
raju (GPROB – Grand Poobah of the Royal Order of Brats): does Rafa have the authority to prevent the Argentine lads from going to Beijing?
@Martin: “It’s the principle of the club having to pay for the right to own itself which I really object to (but you know that already as not the 1st time i’ve mentioned it!”
DIC apart, who might still have used some debt for the purchase anyway, were there any other potential backers who would have bought us without debt? The reason I ask is (not the 1st time I’ve mentioned it either!) is that the use of debt to buy the club, albeit at a holding company level, was known about on takeover. I just wonder if Moores and Parry had resigned themselves to that being the case whoever took over.
” In response to those cynical comments above at the supposed hilarity of having a supporter on the board ”
Julie (Toronto) – I think its the comment made by someone who obviously sees themselves to far above anyone alse, so far infact that they would just laugh at such stupid remarks. ‘Let them eat Cake!’
Martin: “I’ve never heard of him myself but I hear Rick Astley is a very impressive individual – word has it he’s Never gonna give you up, Never gonna let you down, Never gonna run around ,and desert you…”
LOL. That made me spew tea all over my keyboard in laughter. Not a pretty sight, but totally worth it.
@Massive RED: The plans were always due to be approved (or not) this week, and it would be difficult to refuse them given the regulations that surround planning permission (I’m told).
That about the drawings costing lots of money, £18m is the figure I’ve heard most, wouldn’t surprise me, but the goalposts keep moving as to which pot it came from. Some say the £45m transfer/working capital pot, others say it was spent before that pot existed, and now there’s the idea of it coming out of the £60m.
This is the problem we face in trying to work out just what’s going on – we keep getting so many different versions.
Also the cost for the stadium has risen in reports, from the £300m reported in January to the £350m reported now. I see no evidence that is has really risen, just that the reports have evolved that way.
@Jim. Not as far as I know, no. Another – not the 1st time i’ve mentioned it! – statement is that backing DIC by default just because we don’t want Hicks is a pretty ridiculous manifestation of the current situation we are in… Following on from what you said, isn’t that basically what Moores and Parry did?!
@Julie (Toronto): I was laughing at Dawg’s example, rather than whether it will happen or how effective it could be.
I think if it was Kenny Dalglish then that’s hardly what’s implied by the SOS statement.
If it’s Rogan Taylor you’d be surprised how many supporters wouldn’t be at all happy.
But there’s a lot to consider about who it would be. It would have to be an unpaid role, except for expenses etc, otherwise it’s not an independent fan. Quite how that fits in with it being someone with the knowledge to understand all the complexities in the boardroom without losing their current job is hard to tell. In fact I’ll stop there – it’s not something to be taken lightly.
Earlier versions of the idea were for some of the board to meet up with a group of fans rather than have a fan on the board, this version is very recent.
Not sure about Josephine Scouser either. Wasn’t she in the paper over something or other the other day?
@Martin: “Another – not the 1st time i’ve mentioned it! – statement is that backing DIC by default just because we don’t want Hicks is a pretty ridiculous manifestation of the current situation we are in… Following on from what you said, isn’t that basically what Moores and Parry did?!”
“Ridiculous” should be the subtitle for the end-of-season DVD.
But at least it’ll be full of sublime Torres goals.
lol, julie!
Jim, In all seriousness – how about yourself as the fan’s representative on the board?!?!
Think about it – You are in a great position to mediate between the fans and the board, exposing any mis-truths, and you can use the phrase “the very knowledgable Martin said…” every time there’s a board meeting! hahaha
Jim: poor Josephine, that girl never could catch a break – I’m sure there’s a perfectly plausible explanation why she was found naked on Torres’s roof singing Abba songs at the top of her lungs.
@Martin: I could blame you for anything difficult that I had to announce.
@Julie: Her explanation was she was the only one who got caught.
Fan representation is not a bad idea. The question is how it is done. And it will only work if you want it to work.
Fan representation on the board is no different in my view to having council tenants sitting on the board of Arms length Management Organisations (ALMO’s) which run Local Authority Housing Stock. They have an important role to play in terms of making sure the tenants views are heard and voting in a direction that supports this. The issue is making sure they have sufficient experience and backbone to not simply go native.
Texas_Dawg and people like him, like the idea of making money but despise the idea of ordinary people restricting how capital/money men make decisions if it is not in the overall interest of the local community.
I say to Texas_Dawg, instead of dismissing this totally out of hand, think carefully of how Mr. Hicks – who’s failed miserably at engaging with us real fans – make look at increasing our involvement rather than looking at us as cash cows! Unless of course, he has something to hide!
midlands-red: “I say to Texas_Dawg, instead of dismissing this totally out of hand, think carefully of how Mr. Hicks – who’s failed miserably at engaging with us real fans – make look at increasing our involvement rather than looking at us as cash cows! Unless of course, he has something to hide!”
Spot on!
very true midlands.
Not quite the same, and not much information on them either, but this is a Texas Rangers scheme to give fans some say, not sure how much…
http://sportsbusinessjournal.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=article.printArticle&articleId=38813
http://www.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20040810&content_id=824621&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=null
“Dawg – Who do you reckon will win between Clinton and Obama? And who do you want to win the presidential elections?”
Don’t know, don’t care, and I hope they all get eaten by alligators.
Dawg – How much are the TV deals worth per year in American sport, and how do they compare to the premier league?
Depends on the sport and I’m not sure how each compares with the PL deals.
I say to Texas_Dawg, instead of dismissing this totally out of hand, think carefully of how Mr. Hicks – who’s failed miserably at engaging with us real fans – make look at increasing our involvement rather than looking at us as cash cows! Unless of course, he has something to hide!
He heard the fans and is fully behind Rafa, midlands. Didn’t need anyone on the board to make that decision either. (The fan on the board thing is just silly pandering.)
Dawg – Have you ever been for psychiatric help and been given the diagnosis of being a pathological lyer?
Dawg – Have you ever been for psychiatric help and been given the diagnosis of being a pathological lyer?
No. What did I lie about, Anthony?
Should say:
Dawg – Have you ever been for psychiatric help and been given the diagnosis of being a pathological lier?
Or have you ever heard of a story called Pinocchio?
Because I know some one who is very good freinds of Hicks and he said that you are telling pork pies.
here is a link to a good radio show which features LFC as well as EFC but you can take part as its interactive, on mon and tues 7pm -9pm, on air know I will remove the www’ because it will not post otherwise.
bbc.co.uk/liverpool/
Dawg – you havn’t been able to answer my question!
Dawg – I am only jokeing, I do not know any one who is any way aquainted to Hicks, and of course I believe you when you say that you are Hicks christmas card list.
TH has been in the market looking for new funds for sometime now and the announcement that hedge funds have been approached is no surprise. They were approached before and asked TH to sweeten terms, now he is back again in a significantly weaker negotiating position.
As mentioned in previous posts, TH approached a number of private equity funds whose cost of capital is lower than the hedge funds who desire much higher and secured returns. i.e. higher interest rate and accelerated repayment schedule. TH is unlikely to find a long term financing solution for LFC and at best can only secure short term funding at very high rates. The hedge funds are glorified money lenders with a short holding period!
To reiterate, DIC is funded by sovereign wealth and its investment horizon despite contrary claims is much longer – typically 20 to 30 years since they are laying the foundation for long term wealth creation. Therefore under their plan they could ‘lend’ money to the club at single digit interest rates. On that basis they can afford to pay more than £500m for LFC.
Hedge funds on other hand typically have a 5 to 7 year life and have return capital to their investors within that period hence the higher cost of capital – min. 15% but in today’s market more than 20% even on a secured basis. If anyone doubts this please call any hedge fund manager and ask!
Although some doubt, i remain confident that TH and GH will not be in control of the club by July 2008. TH is not interested despite his statements in long term ownership. Once he can put together a financial package at a higher valuation he will use that to grind a higher price from DIC.
Even at £500m its a bargain! I know i am repeating here, but i am so astounded how Moores sold out so cheaply! I have never met the chap and have heard many nice things, but does he have any commercial acumen? Surprised further by the poor advice dished out by Mr. Parry.
” Hedge funds on other hand typically have a 5 to 7 year life and have return capital to their investors within that period hence the higher cost of capital – min. ”
” Although some doubt, i remain confident that TH and GH will not be in control of the club by July 2008 ”
Dawg – You see I told you so! His last throw of the dice.
” but i am so astounded how Moores sold out so cheaply! I have never met the chap and have heard many nice things, but does he have any commercial acumen? ”
Adam Tomkin – You are not the only person who has said that. They must have seen Moores coming. Nothing has changed apart from the debt on the club.
@ Adam Tomkin – welcome back!
As I said before I know little about Hedge Funds but what I do know is that they carry high risk or rather demand high rates of return.
From the outset Tom Hicks mentioned nothing about Hedge Funds. The fact that he’s willing to go down that line suggests he’s desperate. There can be no other reason for going down that line
@ Texas_Dawg – so Hicks wants to keep Rafa. That is really great news. But – regardless of who was considering ousting him – Rafa was always going to remain. In any case, it’s not about the Manager. This is about the long term future of the club. And that’s where Hicks is lettimng himself down – amongst other things of courese.
Jim has actually provided alot of balance to the Hicks, Gillett and DIC debate. But I sense this Hedge Fund stuff makes him wonder what Tom Hicks’ playing at? Or rather, it now makes it blatantly obvious what he’s playing at? Anyway, what say’s you Jim?
@Adam Tomkin – If they – Hicks and Gillett – can be gone by July 2008 then great. But I’ll take August 2008, ’cause Hicks by any means necessary to get the funds makes me nervous _ unless Gillett holds firm, which I think he will (if he can).
@Adam Tomkin: “On that basis they can afford to pay more than £500m for LFC.
That’s possibly part of the problem – Gillett has so far refused to actually sign up to sell to DIC, and perhaps that’s down to him feeling he can get far more out of them.
Even at £500m its a bargain! I know i am repeating here, but i am so astounded how Moores sold out so cheaply! I have never met the chap and have heard many nice things, but does he have any commercial acumen? Surprised further by the poor advice dished out by Mr. Parry.
That remains one of the mysteries of this whole saga so far. And add to that the various other supposed LFC supporters who were sniffing around for years – in hindsight I wonder how many of them would have considered joining forces to buy the club in a similar way to the method used by Hicks.
I have said all along that a hedgefund would not be interested in this deal as its not somthing they would want to waste their time with. Hedgefunds hedge their investments, they get a company and ride it while its share increases and then they sell. Its like the film a good year, they get the stocks when their low, they make the firm more profitable, then when the stocks reach the highest they can get or they reach a high point they sell, and that is where you get the term HEDGE. Its like a surfer riding a wave, they get a wave and ride a wave and get of at the end.
Do you want to see somthing that will bring a tear to your eye’s, you may have seen it already but there’s no harm in watching it again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoQZhVwz9lg
Or if that one doesn’t work try this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTxdFLefjAI&feature=related
@midlands-red: Jim has actually provided alot of balance to the Hicks, Gillett and DIC debate. But I sense this Hedge Fund stuff makes him wonder what Tom Hicks’ playing at? Or rather, it now makes it blatantly obvious what he’s playing at? Anyway, what say’s you Jim?
I know what you’re saying MR, but it doesn’t make anything blatantly obvious really. It’s another one of those reports we keep reading. Some of them must have some truth in them but we’ve had so many. And if it’s true, how true is it?
This reporter, a financial journalist, has written a few articles of interest though:
He wrote/co-wrote these two articles on Mike Ashley, the Newcastle shirt wearing owner:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/03/24/cnash124.xml
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/02/05/cxmktrep104.xml
And this one on us, dated New Year’s Eve:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/12/16/cnlfc116.xml
(he talks about the stadium costing £450m in this story, which by December 31st we knew it didn’t.)
Here’s one on the Glazers, from June last year:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/06/09/cnmanu109.xml
No idea what purpose it serves posting that lot, but it might pass a bit of a quiet morning in work tomorrow for someone…
jim, i was listening to the This Is Anfield podcast this afternoon, and Chris Bascombe was one of the guests. I know how much you respect him as a journo (or did, I haven’t seen you mention him recently), and I think we all know he probably has as much info as any outsider on what’s going on at the club, so I was wondering how you can account for the fact that he thinks Tom O’s sole ownership of the club would be disastrous, and that he thinks that DIC will buy Gillett’s half in may, then squeeze Tom O out (though in truth, the logic behind the squeeze out seems pretty weak to me). And that major players will speak out against Tom O if the situation is not resolved by the end of May.
also, on the Times podcast, Guillem Balague said that Gareth Barry would be the major arrival for Liverpool this off-season, (with him financed by player sales as we already know) meaning that not only will Tom O and Georgie not be putting money in, they will be taking assets built under the previous ownership. the money that normally would have gone to finance players transfers (the 20m or so of the pervious years) is going to pay off the loans that those shysters took to buy the club, thus leaving nothing for rafa. and i think that he is calm about it now because he knows the shit storm that is going to break out in late may if DIC have not bought Gillett’s stake. and we all know that regardless of your demand for answers from DIC, the supporters wrath will be directed at Tom O Hicks.
. i would love to see the numbers on the sales of the new kit. especially UK sales. for me that would be the prime indicator of how the supporters are reacting.
Cory, good – and understandably disenchanted – post.
While Jim’s at it, Texas_Dawg might want to comment as well!
@Cory: I’ve not listened to the podcast. When you say “major players” do you literally mean players, as in playing staff? It’s happened already although it’s being allowed to remain low key for now, and that’s why I’m not going to discuss that particular player on here just now. For his sake.
CB isn’t the only Liverpool-supporting reporter to want Hicks out. And CB doesn’t deal with the PR firms either. He’s a good journalist and probably the only one to stand up last year and ask why DIC had been treated as they reportedly had been, or more to to the point asked why Moores and Parry had it seemed suddenly u-turned.
This idea of forcing Hicks out continues to be claimed as DIC would put money in for say the stadium, then Hicks would have to bail out because he couldn’t fund his half. But as I’ve said before, I can’t see why this wouldn’t be the case now with TH putting money in over and above what GG could afford.
What Balague says sounds like what I was talking about the other day, but probably comes ultimately from the same source. Which doesn’t mean it’s false of course, in fact it sounds pretty plausible to me.
Kit sales figures will be interesting, you’re right.
Even press is ‘pressing’ the almighty hicks now…
timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3883083.ece
@Cory & JB
thanks for the link to the podcasts Cory. Interesting stuff indeed although a lot of it isn’t exactly new.
The one thing that I really did take notice of that you alluded to earlier is CB’s assertion that Hicks is going to find himself under massive pressure if DIC aren’t in after May from everyone around the club (nothing new there) and certain players. He was pretty emphatic about this so will be interesting to see what happens. Jim, if you want to hear this part go to around 16 mins onwards for around 2 mins…
And you’re right, Bascombe thinks it was a massive mistake getting Hicks involved.
Interesting that Bascombe also said something along the line of ‘i think we can agree that most liverpool supporters see Gillett as the lesser of the two villians’. He said this like he believes it himself, which I know you totally agree with Jim!
The one thing that I really did take notice of that you alluded to earlier is CB’s assertion that Hicks is going to find himself under massive pressure if DIC aren’t in after May
And this is probably what Gillett is waiting and hoping for. Pretty insane and sad that a guy would go to such lengths all just to spite someone.
It’s not going to work though, Martin.
Concerned ? We should be with an owner like Tom Hicks.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3883083.ece
More DIC spin, Jim!
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3883083.ece
Wouldn’t it be terrible if Tom Hicks couldn’t raise the finance to commence the new stadium and yet refused to sell out ot someone who could ?? Could happen.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/liverpool/article3883083.ece
Maybe Hicks hasn’t put money in over and above what GG can afford because he doesn’t have the money to do it.
@ Pierre: Not so much DIC spin, because I doubt Oli Kay would take purely their word on this.
But the other side to the coin is that there is this wait to ensure a judicial review isn’t called for. The equivalent of yesterday’s decision for the previous version of the stadium was made in November, but the government decision didn’t come until two months later. So whether they’ve got three-hundred million pound coins sitting there in a big cupboard at the back of the Main Stand or if they’ve still not got the remaining finance sorted out it makes no difference at the moment, they can’t start work anyway.
Then, and I know it sounds like something out of a big book of excuses, but they have another legal obstacle in their way. I checked this out, to see if it really was a legal obstacle, and it seems to be: You can’t fell trees during the nesting season. Google told me that there’s an Act (The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981) setting this out, but the Act doesn’t actually specify the dates of the nesting season. The nesting season, I read, goes into June, but it varies. “The Act makes it an offence (with exception to species listed in Schedule 2) to intentionally kill, injure, or take any wild bird or their eggs or nests.” (According to http://www.jncc.gov.uk/page-1377 which discusses the Act).
In other words, you can’t clear the area until the birds have flown their nests. And the opportunity for puns must be overwhelming by now.
To my way of thinking, we’ve perhaps 6 weeks max of birds nests, and maybe 8 weeks of waiting for the government, although as it was an exercise carried out very recently I expect they could reduce the 8 weeks given they’ve really only got to look at what’s changed in the space of 4-6 months.
The government decision should be a formality, but I suppose it could be argued that there is no point finalising the stadium finance until it’s known that it really was a formality, and that no extra conditions would be applied. But the birds decision is a formality. They will fly!
After that, if the £60m is in the bank waiting for go-ahead, I see no reason why work can’t begin.
So that’s basically an alternative look at the “Sources indicated last night that there are no plans to begin construction in the foreseeable future” bit of the Times report. If we’d been told something like that a year ago just about every Red would have accepted it without the blink of an eye. If DIC had taken over in March and said the same most fans would have accepted it – because no fans assume DIC would struggle to raise the money.
I know I say not to compare the two (DIC and Hicks), but what I’m saying is that this remains a valid excuse, but only for a short time.
Looking at this part of OK’s article: “Sources have described the impasse as “the major issue for the club”, saying that Hicks will come under severe pressure either to prove that he can generate the funds needed to take Liverpool forward or to sell his stake in the club to DIC and allow Gillett to do likewise. I’m not sure what the “severe pressure” is. It could be literally a prediction about how even the most patient supporters will run out of that patience and the protests will escalate. It could be that DIC will, with GG, start a major campaign in the press. It could be that DIC and/or GG will force Hicks’ hand in the courts (or threaten to). But that last one requires GG to accept an offer, and I’m still under the impression he hasn’t. Yet. But whatever the “severe pressure” is, it’s a fact that fans will grow more and more angry if there isn’t some action, not words, soon.
We’ve got a close-season now with no games (after Spurs) to distract us from the other issues. Once or twice a week at least since we went out of the FA Cup we’ve pretty much had 90 minutes of escapism in the form of Torres, Gerrard and the rest entertaining us. Now we’ve got no distractions, anger will build. Maybe this is why a new PR agency has been hired by the Hicks camp.
Why the delay with my posts Jim ??
@Fred: “Maybe Hicks hasn’t put money in over and above what GG can afford because he doesn’t have the money to do it.”
I understand your point, you aren’t the first to raise it, but I can’t help thinking that he could find the money if it was an easy way of muscling GG out. He’s had six months to find one of his many other interests to sell, even if it’s not the best deal for him, in order to do this. The only thing that might stop him is that DIC might help GG call his bluff, technically speaking.
@Jofrad: If your post has a link in it then there’s a good chance it’ll go into the spam folder. I’ve no control over that without opening it up completely to all kinds of spam. So they sit there until I physically free them!
Even some of my own comments have gone into the same place if I’ve had links in them, but less often.
If you’ve got more than I think 3 links in a comment, even if it doesn’t class it as spam, it automatically holds them in another folder, a moderation folder, for manual checking.
Prediction – The new stadium will never be started while Tom Hicks is an owner of the club.
So is that right that DIC formally made Gillett an offer that Hicks vetoed? According to Oliver Kay that happened in March. I must admit I thought that for all the talk nothing had actually been formally offered.
Hey ain’t that incredible. Patrik Berger has been sacked for telling Barry to join LFC.
Tommy Smith has said that it looks It looks likely that Peter Crouch, John Arne Riise and Jermaine Pennant will be on their way, and Xabi Alonso could join them.
I have just got this email fro Share Liverpool saying that John Barnes is backing Share Liverpool.
Liverpool FC Legend John Barnes announces ShareLiverpoolFC support
One of Liverpool FC’s greatest-ever players, John Barnes, has given his backing to ShareLiverpoolFC in their quest for fan ownership of the club.
Part of the last title-winning LFC team in 1989/90, John says:
“I’ve been saddened by what’s been happening in the boardroom lately, and I think it’s time for things to change. Liverpool Football Club is part of the community, and it’s time our magnificent supporters had a say in how the club is run.”
“That’s why I’m delighted to back ShareLiverpoolFC. If democratic ownership works for clubs like Barcelona and Bayern Munich, why can’t it work here?”
Affectionately known as “Digger”, John joins his old team-mates John Aldridge and Phil Thompson in declaring his support for the ShareLiverpoolFC concept. They are amongst nearly 40,000 people who have registered an interest through the ShareLiverpoolFC website http://www.shareliverpoolfc.com
With the ownership troubles at LFC reigniting recently, ShareLiverpoolFC has been gaining momentum and high levels of media interest. On Saturday, a feature appeared in the main local paper, the Liverpool Echo, with a tear off coupon allowing many local fans who may not use the internet the chance to get to know all about ShareLiverpoolFC and to register their interest. You can see the online version of the article at: http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/05/03/john-barnes-backs-share-liverpool-fans-buy-out-100252-20856025/
As the season draws to a close, sadly without a trophy this year, the work to get fans on the road to ownership of our great club will continue. We’re very optimistic about the prospects.
We are developing closer relations to the Spirit of Shankly movement too. ( http://www.sonsofshankly.com/ ). One of the SOS leading lights, Peter Furmedge, is on the Board of ShareLiverpoolFC, and we expect former SOS Chairman, Nicky Alt, (who recently stepped down from that role) to join the SLFC Steering Group this week. We want to make sure both organisations work in tandem; we share a common goal: Our Club owned by, and responsible to, the Liverpool fans.
The website is currently being entirely rebuilt, so we can offer a much more interactive facility for you, and deal much easier with the substantial database we now possess. For those of you who might be interested in a form of ‘group membership’ (where fans can join together to purchase a single share in LFC) we hope, alongside SOS, to develop proposals for ‘share clubs’ which will be formerly registered, along lines similar to lottery syndicates.
There’s much to do. We’ll be in touch soon.
With thanks again for your patience and support,
Rogan Taylor,
On behalf of ShareLiverpoolFC
http://www.shareliverpoolfc.com
Martin – Follow this link:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu_moia-oVI
Thanks for posting that Anthony. Good to see progress being made on Share Liverpool FC.
A £5000 (or portion) investment now to buy the club will pay back any fan in spades over the course of their life – cheaper tickets etc and pride in being part of something great – this club.
(We saved ourselves £2000 plus by not getting to Moscow – just one game. £5000 buys you a lifetime of memories (happy ones hopefully).
Share Liverpool FC can happen! Lets support it however we can. Otherwise we could be forced into a continuing cycle of different owners raping the club for every penny WE put into it.
If the LFC one is succesful then there will be a revolution in the way clubs are run in this country. It will probably end the way the fans get shafted by the suits who have a licence to print money at our expense.
Every Game Last’s 90 Minutes:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=YVjzdVnyw5E&feature=related
The Echo has got a story that DIC and SOS have been in Dialog regarding a fan on the board:
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2008/05/07/spirit-of-shankly-in-talks-with-dic-to-give-fans-a-say-100252-20874333/
Texas_Dawg:
“It’s not going to work though, Martin.”
Hypothetically Dawg, if the fans, Rafa, and say for example Jamie Carragher and Steven Gerrard all came out strongly opposed to Hicks would he still not back down?! Basically the whole club publicly stating they are against him, would that not even change his mind?!
Hypothetical but your statement about Gillett: “Pretty insane and sad that a guy would go to such lengths all just to spite someone.” Could easily be changed to read in relation to Hicks as “Pretty insane and sad that a guy would go to such lengths all just to MAKE SOME CASH”.
@Anthony Fakir
Great link.it’s brightened up my day. What makes it even more memorable for me is that at half time i was stood waiting to get a drink in the neutral area of the ground(supposedley neutral but was probabley 4:1 reds) and AC Milan fans around us were ripping the piss out of us in English! One of them said we were the worst team theyve ever seen play in a final.If i could have seen there faces at the end of the game that would have capped it all off. Best night of my life and the 4 hour trip on the bus to and from the ground was well worth it
The involvement of the players is an interesting if risky strategy.
If however it did lead to a successful outcome, in terms of the ownership, it would provide a huge amount of positive momentum that we could take into next season.
lol, Anthony. I get the reference even if others don’t!
Hypothetically Dawg, if the fans, Rafa, and say for example Jamie Carragher and Steven Gerrard all came out strongly opposed to Hicks would he still not back down?! Basically the whole club publicly stating they are against him, would that not even change his mind?!
Hypothetical but your statement about Gillett: “Pretty insane and sad that a guy would go to such lengths all just to spite someone.” Could easily be changed to read in relation to Hicks as “Pretty insane and sad that a guy would go to such lengths all just to MAKE SOME CASH”.
True and fair points, Martin.
I think if it came to that Hicks would probably consider selling. I don’t think it would come to that though. The hypothetical whereby Gillett — the owner that doesn’t want to be involved with the club anymore as it is — stays on just to throw the club into the ditch in order to spite Hicks looks a lot more likely right now. Hopefully it won’t come to that though.
Personally I would be disgusted if players started taking sides. Sure they probably know more than us seeing as they’re at the club on an almost daily basis, but what suddenly makes them boardroom experts? I also think they’d probably find themselves out of the door pretty quickly. Can you imagine civil war at Anfield with even the players occupying different halves of the dressing room and not talking to each other?
Encouraging everyone to resolve the issue and find a solution, fair enough, because that’s what we desperately need. But even then they’d probably be wise not to forget who their employers are before they get too carried away.
Well, here’s a bit of news to chew over. Not sure if it’s good news or not, though…
I just found out that there’s a rumour floating around amongst sports journalists over here who follow ice hockey that Hicks is trying to sell the Dallas Stars to raise the funds to finance his buyout of Gillett. This surely is a sign of his growing desperation but also his determination. Needless to say, the credit crunch is exerting pressure on both their corporate empires, which may force the hands of both in different kinds of ways (eg. how long can Gillett afford to hold out if Hicks mounts a court challenge to Gillett’s sale to DIC? And on the other side, how long can Hicks prolong the sale between Gillett and Dubai/DIC if he continues to run out of financing options?).
I just found out that there’s a rumour floating around amongst sports journalists over here who follow ice hockey that Hicks is trying to sell the Dallas Stars to raise the funds to finance his buyout of Gillett. This surely is a sign of his growing desperation but also his determination. Needless to say, the credit crunch is exerting pressure on both their corporate empires
Hicks floated the sale of the Stars several years ago, Julie, but ultimately decided to keep the team. That could be the genesis of that rumor.