In happier times
As the deadline for the RBS loan gets closer with no end in sight, I would like to remind fans of some articles from the past, when the 2 Americans were in a battle with the Dubai Investment Capital group for the purchase of Liverpool. I remember the reaction then was that Liverpool were gonna go on a spending spree to bring in the best players from Europe and abroad, and that they were richer than Manchester United, as the fan reaction to the Americans takeover was more welcoming compared to the Glazers, as the Glazers were upfront about how they were going to finance the takeover, through loans against assets, whereas the Americans were hush hush about their deal, leading to the assumption they were financing a Roman Abramovich cash-in-hand takeover.
31 January 2007
Here we see the DIC pull out of the deal to buy Liverpool, after they were outbid by 500 pounds per share. At that point, their Executive Chairman reacted angrily to the deal, but perhaps highlighted something most fans failed to see, which was the fact that the DIC was a more stable and possibly longer-term solution than the Americans by stating, “DIC is a serious investor with considerable resources at its disposal”. Did they already know that the Americans were not as rich as they laid out to be? And did they also know the Americans were in it only for the short term? Whether the DIC deal would have made a difference or not is irrelevant, as back then, the 2008 financial crisis and the 2009 Middle Eastern financial crisis had yet to happen.
6 February 2007
Nothing major to report here, as DIC confirms its pulling the plug on the deal to buy Liverpool. I just liked how at the end of the article, Hicks was described as a billionaire, and it may have been right at the time, but how times have changed.
14 March 2007
This was the so called bombshell drop that should have also acted as a warning sign. More than a month after confirming the purchase of Liverpool, it emerged that the Liverpool takeover were also financed by loans. This was contrary to the earlier belief that the Americans were cash rich, and if you look at the other hyperlinks on the DIC failed takeover, you would not be wrong to assume the Americans actually had the cash the way the article was written. The main article itself was a shocker, and tried to put the deal in good light, by highlighting that the Liverpool deal was a better deal, since it was against a “Personal Guarantee” from the Americans, rather than the future earnings of Arsenal or against assets of Man Utd. As a former Corporate Accounts Relationship Manager (as stated in my previous article) I can tell you that if you gave me the 3 deals at one go with all things being equal, I would pick in the order of Man Utd, Arsenal and then Liverpool. A personal guarantee means nought, unless you have the cash to back it up. If the Americans personally ran out of cash, the bank risks the most exposure, and are screwed. Smart and aggressive businessmen indeed. I just wonder how the board actually agreed to such a deal.
