6 + 2 Point Deductions

We struggled massively to secure loans against a stadium, not so much future broadcasting income.

The only question that needs to be asked more widely, is, would Everton be in this position if we were not building a stadium and associated infrastructure. If the answer is no, there is potentially a case, if the answer is yes, then WTAF.
The thing is from Moshiri buying the club in 2016 to the present day the club has received 24 different commercial loans. Six months after Moshiri bought the club we took out a high-interest loan with Rights and Media against future TV revenue.

To pretend that the club only takes out commercial loans because of the Stadium simply doesn't stand up to the most basic form of scrutiny.

What outlines the absolute stupidity of Moshiri though is the fact that he didn't even try and disguise it. If we had claimed a proportion of the interest on a pro-rata basis then we might have got away with it. To try and claim all of the interest was just farcical.

Every club in the League will have an interest-bearing revolving credit facility with at least one or more financial institutions.
 

I'm still astounded that almost literally nobody involved has any kind of culpability from this financial malfeasance. DBB, the CFO, Kenwright(obv), moshiri, not a one of them apparently bear any responsibility for the state of us today.
I think it is very telling that BDO were apparently unwilling to sign off the accounts and that Ingles and DBB were unwilling to speak to the Independent Commission.
 
So this stadium interest loan thing….
its about 2 million quid.
as I understand it, the stadium loan at this point was considered (by the independent panel) an interest free loan from Moshiri and therefore it was wrong to try to try to claim money against it for PSR requirements.
Moshiri tried to claim that the R&M and Metro bank loans were defacto loans for the stadium and that the club wouldnt have had these loans of it weren’t for the stadium as he’d just have paid them off as he had with other loans.
The panel however, decided that due to the paperwork for both R&M and Metro bank loans not mentioning the stadium and that there was nothing to say that Moshiri hadn’t just made up that he’d have paid the loan off, then it couldn’t be in anyway certain the loan was for the stadium.

It seems that the club provided misleading information to the PL which is why initially they thought the stadium loan interest would be accepted.



is that a fair summary of the situation?
 
I'm still astounded that almost literally nobody involved has any kind of culpability from this financial malfeasance. DBB, the CFO, Kenwright(obv), moshiri, not a one of them apparently bear any responsibility for the state of us today.
Fiduciary duties of directors:
  • to act within the powers prescribed in the company’s constitution;
  • to act in a manner that is most likely to promote the success of the company;
  • to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence when carrying out their duties;
  • to refuse benefits from third parties;
  • to avoid conflicts of interest;
  • to exercise independent judgement; and
  • to declare any interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement that the company intends to enter into.

Where a director is found to be in breach of his or her fiduciary duties, the following claims can be brought by the company involved in the dispute:

  • Restitution of profits. Where the company has suffered loss as a result of a director’s misconduct, a court may order any personal profit made by the director in connection with the conduct to be relinquished to the company.
  • Restoration of property. If an erring director has taken hold of any property belonging to the company, the company may seek restoration of that property.
  • Injunctive relief. A company may also bring a claim against a director to prevent them from carrying out a breach or continuing to breach their duties, known as an injunction.
  • Rescission of a contract. If a director signs a contract that is contrary to the company’s intentions, this can be reversed.
  • Damages. Damages may be payable to a company where it has suffered loss as the result of a director’s negligent infringement of his or her duties.
The last one is interesting. £500m of damages would be great please. The action has to be brought by and on behalf of the company, not customers, suppliers (or fans!!). But shareholders could bring action on behalf of the company.

Not a chance in hell in reality, not just here but any most situations. But it is bizarre how directors in all companies are allowed to make all sort of mess and their only punishment is usually a massive payoff and a 1 year non-compete clause.
 

Any truth in this or….?
IMG_3917.jpeg
 

Top