I'm purely speculating here, but I have a theory about all this.
A few people have expressed surprise at the reports that DIC might only buy Hicks' share of the club rather than all of it, and I have to admit it surprised me too. It has seemed from the start to me that Gillett is more serious about this club than Hicks, so maybe Hicks was willing to sell but Gillett wasn't. If DIC insisted they buy all the shares or none of them, as I believe they probably would have, Hicks would have been stuck in the position of wanting to sell but not being able to. Initially I couldn't understand what Hicks felt he possibly had to gain by admitting the approach to Klinsmann, but could it be that Hicks revealed this to make Gillett's position untenable, and therefore forcing him to sell?
I think it's become apparent that Hicks doesn't really want to be involved in the club anymore, but I'm not so sure Gillett wants to pull out. This could have actually been a very smart move on Hicks' part, Gillett doesn't have the money to buy his stake and if DIC take an all or nothing approach the only way to get out is to force Gillett to sell. And what better way than getting the end user, the fans, to turn on him?
Logged