D.I.C rubbishes spin on "secret report". (Press Association)

by Rupert Insider

The Press Association (PA) is reporting that Dubai International Capital (DIC) have effectively rubbished the interpretation of a Daily Telegraph reporter that it has a strategy to re-sell LFC in seven years (2014) and no clear plans to invest in the team.

(As I write, I can see CNN International TV featuring the Telegraph report).

Making reference to its plans for financing, the DIC official sought to reassure Liverpool fans that much of the financing being sought from banks was conventional and related to the construction of the stadium.

(Steven Morgan, a failed bidder for the club, admitted last week that he expected DIC to finance the stadium conventionally by loans, and he and every other bidder would have done it that way, too).

The DIC official said that all its financial planning was designed to ensure that if the takeover were to proceed there would be “the best possible” financial support for Rafael Benitez under the DIC stewardship.

“This is particularly important as we would need to get on with the stadium early in 2007 and it takes time to sort out the necessary financing.

“This is also important in terms of making sure cash is available for the ongoing strengthening of the playing squad.

“Should DIC acquire the club, Liverpool will be well run, both on and off the pitch, and we are currently laying the groundwork to ensure that will be the case.”

But the DIC source emphasised they have not concluded their takeover of the club so talk of plans to sell it in seven years do not make sense.

“DIC has not yet formally made an offer, never mind completed a deal. Certainly there are no plans to exit an acquisition we have not even bought yet.

“It (DIC) is a very serious investor with considerable resources at its disposal and the ability to take a long-term view.

“Equally, we believe that we understand the responsibilities that come with owning

“DIC has made it clear that, should a deal be concluded, it would not interfere in the day-to-day running of the club.”

This statement not only knocks the Daily Telegraph interpretation on the head, but also the various pieces coming out of Duncan Oldham of Koptalk Komic Kuts.

He claimed that his “sources” inside Anfield had told him that the deal was much more advanced than this and that £200-£300 million was already earmarked for players and about £30 million of it was available in the January transfer window.

But he never thought to check with his “insider” sources yesterday when he read the Telegraph report. He declared it “troubling” and he advised us all “don’t dismiss it as as complete nonsense just yet”.

When he has had time to read this blog and his “rival” sites – no doubt we will hear from his phantom “insider sources” again.

See my earlier comments on the Kop Talk Krap and the Telegraph report.

In that piece I suggested that the document referred to by the Telegraph should be interpeted as a fairly normal prospectus for debt and equity financing, and that the seven years ROI – return-on-investment – was a normal kind of theoretical scenario for potential minority shareholders. I suggested the Telegraph reporter was wrong to interpret it in the way he did.

If you have not paid Oldham of Koptalk Komic Kuts £30 for “inside information” and not bought any fake LFC memorabilia from him or given money to his shady unregistered charities, I’d advise you to keep it that way!


4 Responses to “D.I.C rubbishes spin on "secret report". (Press Association)”

  1. johnt Says:

    im inclined to agree with you, borrow the stadium money avail of tax breaks on it then invest in the squad with DIC’s own fortune for the long haul

  2. LFCPost Says:

    Hi IIers, why does the title for your feed items keep changing?

  3. rupertinsider Says:

    LFC Post

    My fault. I drafted a long title – as I usually do before refining it. But posted before I did. I noticed it later, changed it and then noticed that the hit counter seemed to have stopped. So I wondered if a change of title causes a “new count”. So I changed it again just to see.

    I didn’t realise it might cause a problem for an aggregator. Sorry if it did. I forgot that you were not asleep where you are.

  4. LFCPost Says:

    Cheers for the reply mate. Not a problem if the date of the feed stays the same but the date seems to update on any change. Other news feeds do it too, I’ll keep an eye on it via a standalone news reader and see if it picks up the duplicates. May be something I need to tweak when parsing the feeds.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: