Liverpool FC Forum

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:00 am

RUSHIE#9 wrote:I have been wondering about this supposed veto Hicks has got. We know very few details about the setup between these two hillbillies but is it not possible that this blocking by one party of the other parties stake in the club could be considered a restriction of trade. Seeing as the merchandise is Liverpool FC a British/European based company/club would it not have to be handled within that territories laws? I don't know if I'm grasping at straws here but if anyone has an understanding of this sort of thing please give us all a glimmer of hope. I BEG YOU!!!

I don't think so mate

Hicks (liar I know) says his contract stops Gillett selling if Hicks disapproves, whether or not he makes a counter-offer.

I take that to mean a mutal consent contract was signed, in which BOTH parties must agree to any sale of shares. Hicks can hold Gillett trapped in with him as long as he likes if thats true.

by **heimdall** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:06 am

Kukilon wrote:Hicks has taken a on this club for the last time.

I have cancelled every membership I have ever had that is connected with the club and it's now time to stop using products from Carlsberg etc.

Stuff like this works but it needs to be done on a larger scale. We need to make sure that all the companies are aware that this will only be done until Hicks and CO are gone.

There is no way, no way in hell I'm giving up my beer.

I've just waded through 6 pages of total knee jerk reaction which is understandable, but people chill out, this is just more posturing from Hicks, he seems to have the mental capacity of his good friend George W.
I'm fairly certain now that Hicks just hates Arabs and if it is was anyone else then he would sell.
I cannot believe that the deal between Gillet and Hicks allows Hicks to indefinitely block any sale, why would Gillet allow that, remember it was he who invited Hicks into the deal not the other way around. Sooner or later we will be owned by DIC and this fecking nightmare will be over, I just hope that it doesn't affect the lads for tomorrow.

by **heimdall** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:09 am

s@int wrote:
RUSHIE#9 wrote:I have been wondering about this supposed veto Hicks has got. We know very few details about the setup between these two hillbillies but is it not possible that this blocking by one party of the other parties stake in the club could be considered a restriction of trade. Seeing as the merchandise is Liverpool FC a British/European based company/club would it not have to be handled within that territories laws? I don't know if I'm grasping at straws here but if anyone has an understanding of this sort of thing please give us all a glimmer of hope. I BEG YOU!!!

I don't think so mate Hicks (liar I know) says his contract stops Gillett selling if Hicks disapproves, whether or not he makes a counter-offer.

I take that to mean a mutal consent contract was signed, in which BOTH parties must agree to any sale of shares. Hicks can hold Gillett trapped in with him as long as he likes if thats true.

Yes but in the case of a dispute you would normally have an arbitration clause wouldn't you, that is standard in pretty much any partnership agreement. There must be a way out otherwise its just insane and Gillett truly is a fecking idiot.

by **account deleted by request** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:19 am

heimdall wrote:
Kukilon wrote:Hicks has taken a on this club for the last time.

I have cancelled every membership I have ever had that is connected with the club and it's now time to stop using products from Carlsberg etc.

Stuff like this works but it needs to be done on a larger scale. We need to make sure that all the companies are aware that this will only be done until Hicks and CO are gone.

There is no way, no way in hell I'm giving up my beer.

I've just waded through 6 pages of total knee jerk reaction which is understandable, but people chill out, this is just more posturing from Hicks, he seems to have the mental capacity of his good friend George W.
I'm fairly certain now that Hicks just hates Arabs and if it is was anyone else then he would sell.
I cannot believe that the deal between Gillet and Hicks allows Hicks to indefinitely block any sale, why would Gillet allow that, remember it was he who invited Hicks into the deal not the other way around. Sooner or later we will be owned by DIC and this fecking nightmare will be over, I just hope that it doesn't affect the lads for tomorrow.

I think Hicks idea is to force Gillett to sell to him for a price that is less than DIC have offered. Hicks then owns 100% of the club or at the very least a controlling interest. He can then sell the club as a whole for much much more than for just his half would be worth.

The only options Gillett has are to sit tight( problems arise when loans become due), or sell to Hicks and hope to get out with a small profit.

The mutual consent contract is supposedly to stop one of the parties selling to a unsavoury or disreputable character, I don't suppose Gillett realised he was already stuck with an unsavoury character in Hicks.

by **Bad Bob** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:09 am

Just clicked over to the Echo LFC page and was greeted with an image that sums up this entire farce. Under "Investment Deal Latest" we see a picture of Hicks with the headline "Dubai Deal For LFC Still On The Cards Despite Leaked Letters Row." Part way down the page what do we find in the "Top Stories" section? The same feckin' picture of Hicks next to the headline "Tom Hicks Pulls Plug Over Liverpool FC Dubai Deal." Every day it's a 180 degree about-face. God, let this just be more posturing. :no

Says it All

by **LegBarnes** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:19 am

its beyound a joke now i was talking to my friend and he is a man u fan dont ask.

He even felt sorry for me and the club now you know it has to be bad when you get that from a manc jesus i dont really am much up on god but i sure will be praying every night till this gos away.

I am at point now where i would have us finish 10th and get rid of hicks then win the prem with him in charge. "cry" :sniffle

by **nobybob** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:22 am

username wrote:"BOYCOTTING a few matches" is stupid. Our team is in high moral, how well do you think they are going to play when they have no fans while playing at home? Talk about kicking moral in the nuts, pulling them off, cutting each limb of with a chainsaw then shoving everything in a blender.

All this selling of the clubs doesnt help the players, they dont need to have no fans at home, they need to be cheered on louder than ever

oh my god how ignorant can you get !! you talk of team moral, do you not realise that if the yanks stay in charge we wont have a team never mind moral. TELL ME PLEASE ONE OF YOU NO BOYCOTTERS. -----What difference will the results of a few games , or the team moral in the short term make when compared to the potential damage caused by fuk!n hicks and co, which could completely destroy our great club.
"cheer all the louder u say" sorry there is just no way that i could stand there cheering whilst the very act of me paying gate money to the bellendds is contributing to the possible destruction of the club

WHY CANT YOU FOOLS LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE AND REALISE YOUR NOT SUPPORTING THE CLUB , YOUR HELPING THE YANKS FINISH US OF FOR GOOD :veryangry

WE CAN CHEER JUST AS LOUD FROM OUTSIDE THE GATES AS INSIDE!

by **nobybob** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:24 am

username wrote:"BOYCOTTING a few matches" is stupid. Our team is in high moral, how well do you think they are going to play when they have no fans while playing at home? Talk about kicking moral in the nuts, pulling them off, cutting each limb of with a chainsaw then shoving everything in a blender.

All this selling of the clubs doesnt help the players, they dont need to have no fans at home, they need to be cheered on louder than ever

oh my god how ignorant can you get !! you talk of team moral, do you not realise that if the yanks stay in charge we wont have a team never mind moral. TELL ME PLEASE ONE OF YOU NO BOYCOTTERS. -----What difference will the results of a few games , or the team moral in the short term make when compared to the potential damage caused by fuk!n hicks and co, which could completely destroy our great club.
"cheer all the louder u say" sorry there is just no way that i could stand there cheering whilst the very act of me paying gate money to the bellendds is contributing to the possible destruction of the club

WHY CANT YOU FOOLS LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE AND REALISE YOUR NOT SUPPORTING THE CLUB , YOUR HELPING THE YANKS FINISH US OF FOR GOOD :veryangry

WE CAN CHEER JUST AS LOUD FROM OUTSIDE THE GATES AS INSIDE!

by **LegBarnes** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:24 am

nobybob wrote:
username wrote:"BOYCOTTING a few matches" is stupid. Our team is in high moral, how well do you think they are going to play when they have no fans while playing at home? Talk about kicking moral in the nuts, pulling them off, cutting each limb of with a chainsaw then shoving everything in a blender.

All this selling of the clubs doesnt help the players, they dont need to have no fans at home, they need to be cheered on louder than ever

oh my god how ignorant can you get !! you talk of team moral, do you not realise that if the yanks stay in charge we wont have a team never mind moral. TELL ME PLEASE ONE OF YOU NO BOYCOTTERS. -----What difference will the results of a few games , or the team moral in the short term make when compared to the potential damage caused by fuk!n hicks and co, which could completely destroy our great club.
"cheer all the louder u say" sorry there is just no way that i could stand there cheering whilst the very act of me paying gate money to the bellendds is contributing to the possible destruction of the club

WHY CANT YOU FOOLS LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE AND REALISE YOUR NOT SUPPORTING THE CLUB , YOUR HELPING THE YANKS FINISH US OF FOR GOOD

Just what i have been saying on page 109 ithink hehe

by **nobybob** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:28 am

Great minds and all that ( or is it fools never differ )

by **LegBarnes** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:29 am

on the petition quote "Jamie McKean I'm an Everton fan, but you can't run football like this... "

Omg even the bitters are signing get in !

by **Emerald Red** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:34 am

Hicks speaks on his decision to quit talks with DIC.

Listen to what he has to say very carefully.

Link.

by **LegBarnes** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:39 am

Emerald Red wrote:Hicks speaks on his decision to quit talks with DIC.

Listen to what he has to say very carefully.

Link.

lol go to sleep red.

This video proves black people cant run up walls lol priceless.

Oneof the comments made me fall outa my chair

by **LFC2007** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:45 am

Ciggy wrote:
NANNY RED wrote:Sorry no offence Joe cause your a nice lad but the yanks love gettin into a war well this is one war there not gonna win I AM NOW OFFICIALY AT WAR WITH THE YANK HICKS

Phone him up Nan heres his number leave a message with his secretary. 0012146152300

That'll cost a bit to call the US. Gonna have to borrow someone's phone for that, 'my car's broken down, can I use your phone? Ta' :;):

by **username** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 4:13 am

I still saying not going to matches does more bad than good

If we do it for a few matches hicks will know it wont last and it will stop. all in that time we have reduced team moral and achived nothing. While we will still be getting fans going anyway.

But over a long time may just get us with a diffrent owner. But i dont see it lasting that long and surely you cant say it wont effect the club, it will be the fans destroying the club.

Not supporting the club will kill the club before hicks stupity and lies have the chance too

But if you dont agree with me, how about someone replies is a post THAT ISNT CAPS ALL THE TIME.

Liverpool FC Forum

TAKEOVER COMPLETE - H & G Finally Jibbed!

Who is online