trowie

No offence taken but the source of your irritation is within yourself.Get over it

The conundrum for me is If Hicks values the club at twice what Dic will pay then Gilette will want that same evaluation for selling his shares to Hicks. If Gilette values it as only half of what Hicks does and is prepared to sell it to DIC at that price, then Hicks has every right to buy Gilette out for the same amount. If I were Gilette I would demand what Hicks values the club at and if he can't pay that then stick.

Is the proportions quoted there in any way accurate ie 1000 to 200

In view of his comments in the aricle above, I have come to the conclusion that Gilette cannot sell his share unless the valuation of the club is agreed by Hicks Gilette and the buyer (DIC)This could explain why each of them had their own financial guys going over the books independantly of each other as reported in the echo Once a valuation has been fixed and agreed then the negotiations begin and if Hicks disagrees with the price and valuation then he has every right to refuse the sale. (I would imagine)

By offering over the odds DIC would be putting a higher value on Hicks share if they were to go after his portion of the pie.I would imagine there would be hard negotiations between all three parties to settle on a true valuation of the club before any deal could go ahead between Gilette and DIC

Hicks sorry DICS worry f*** One of thems not got a buck when the clock strikes one One yankee c***'ll be gone Hicks sorry DICS worry f***

Les Dawson eat yer heart out

How come we don't compete then

When it was sold last the headlines was it was sold for £400m 200 for club and £200m for stadiumIs the same not being done here ie £325m for the debt £300m for stadium and amything else as profit

Then we would have had a surplus as we would only have needed to buy Moore share not the full whack. Anyhow this keeps going one step further away all the time that I can't remember the point of the original

In which case Moores could have just let us buy ourselves the stadium in a 50% ownership deal with no debt whatsoever. For that was the whole reason of selling it wasn't it. Capital investment to finance the stadium without the debt

How Loan= Debt

And the stadium?

Indirectly will be serviced by the club through dividends they pay themselves. But if they cnat pay it's theoretically them who fall into administration not us. In theory I say... Perhaps someone can tell me the legalities or illegalities of syphoning money out of a business for themselves when there is no money surplus.

You are spot on mate.The issue of anger isn't particularly about the spend though is it. It's the structure of the club the treatment of the manager, the about turn on a working practice whereby the manager had an agreed programme of recruitment and the loading of that debt against the club, which admittedly has in theory not happened. Dic would have done the same with the money side, Kraft too and I can guarantee if we all clubbed together and bought the club with second mortgages we would be demanding a divi to pay off our own personal debt. I have no problems with the financial side of things as long as they are competent. I don't believe they are competent enough in the world of football to make this a happy experience. I also am not sure DIC are either as for all my wishes that they takeover, it's only cos I want rid of G&H. I suppose my ideal owners would have been Moores and Miskelly. M n M now that sounds far nicer than G&T G&H or DIC

especially as most had sponsored each other

Only as the rest have thrown themselves off the Byrom Street flyover

I'd like to do more but my hands are tied

picking my nose is harder

clockwork fyds are you tic or are you toc pendulum swings just like your c**k tic toc tic toc tic toc

No mention of Gary Mac or Feb 18th then

Second that and trying to wade through the bog of the lynchmob and hysteria to get that explanation has been really hard.However as much as I think I understand it all the abstractness of the whole thing makes me realise, that I had more joy working out the meaning of life. Still want these half witted financial dudes out of the club and run the way it used to be.

The provident will only lend me 600 max or I'd be on my way to texas to make a bid

So basically G&H do not own the club apart from the £55m that the banks have insisted they put up front. All they have done is convince a money organisation that they can convert the investment(loan) into profit(interest) for them. Which basically is a custodian of someone elses weath and administrator of the whole investment. They must have convinced the owner(Banks) that they can maintain the cow that is going to give the milk and convert it into two cows that will eventually provide the milk for both the banks and the administrators. f*** me it's a bit like voting a government in. Who will run the capitalist system in your country and do the best with the resources we have. 60 thousand supporters take a seconfd mortgage of ten tousand each and we can play that game.

Good job he didn't cos that would have eventually disappeared into the a*** pockets of the two shysters