777 Partners / Whatever the hell you like

[CalBuckeye_Rob]

I just read the complaint. To me, it’s mostly wild ramblings complaining about the corporate structure of reinsurance and several clear misunderstandings about the nature and power of a first lienholder. They twist these into a conspiracy narrative that I don’t think holds up under scrutiny.

I think it’s clear that the Plaintiff failed to do basic due diligence on its lending and is shocked to learn it’s not first in line when a basic search of UCC financing statements and the international equivalent would have given them a heads up.

They rely on some generic boilerplate definitions of “equity” in corporate asset layering that comes off as a bit naive to me.

Their own timeline also shows they knew about some of this for 3 years before filing suit and continued to lend to 777. The fact that Wanders let them record these meetings suggests it wasn’t fraud.

But the Complaint also raises some serious accusations that stand on their own regardless:

1. falsified financial account balance statements: if true, deadly to 777

2. collateral being sold without notice to the Plaintiff: fraud if proven

3. collateral “not existing”: fraud if proven

Most disturbing is the apparent lack of liquidity. 777 is clearly overextended and will have to liquidate assets or refinance to cover around $610M in credit that is being called in because of the collateralization issue.

I think a bigger danger is if regulators dig into 777s liquidity. Their reinsurance business requires pretty strict reserves.

Buyers of sports franchises almost always have a huge foundation of money generated by the assets they hold or just cash they have generated from earlier assets. 777 just seems to borrow constantly and move money around. That eventually crashes and burns when all the creditors want paid at the same time because they realize you have duped them.

 

[LouReedwalkonthewildside]

they’ve not contacted my reps

seriously someone else will buy us

No one else is buying us mate. This is Everton Football Club...

<iframe src="https://giphy.com/embed/LqxpLOIlwEp8jok3Ba" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="">via GIPHY</a></p>

 

[Somerset Blue]

No, me old mate. Nonsense. These seeds were sown 25 years ago when Kenwright walked into the boardroom. Who knows who Kenwright got into bed with to keep hold of the club? Things have just unravelled now he's dead.

Oh well, we are where we are! He’s dead and we’ve got a [Poor language removed] hand to play with. All the blame in the world ain’t changing that! It’s a mess we have to somehow get out of.

 

[Blue peter]

Do we expect a demonstration against 777 against Sheffield United? I think we should consider it.

Probably better off demonstrating about Moshiri’s ownership….777 look a busted flush….a protest against them be meaningless use of any air time

 

[maccavennie]

I just read the complaint. To me, it’s mostly wild ramblings complaining about the corporate structure of reinsurance and several clear misunderstandings about the nature and power of a first lienholder. They twist these into a conspiracy narrative that I don’t think holds up under scrutiny.

I think it’s clear that the Plaintiff failed to do basic due diligence on its lending and is shocked to learn it’s not first in line when a basic search of UCC financing statements and the international equivalent would have given them a heads up.

They rely on some generic boilerplate definitions of “equity” in corporate asset layering that comes off as a bit naive to me.

Their own timeline also shows they knew about some of this for 3 years before filing suit and continued to lend to 777. The fact that Wanders let them record these meetings suggests it wasn’t fraud.

But the Complaint also raises some serious accusations that stand on their own regardless:

1. falsified financial account balance statements: if true, deadly to 777

2. collateral being sold without notice to the Plaintiff: fraud if proven

3. collateral “not existing”: fraud if proven

Most disturbing is the apparent lack of liquidity. 777 is clearly overextended and will have to liquidate assets or refinance to cover around $610M in credit that is being called in because of the collateralization issue.

I think a bigger danger is if regulators dig into 777s liquidity. Their reinsurance business requires pretty strict reserves.

Thanks for taking the time to do that mate, that gives us a clearer insight into the current state of play with them

 

[stamullenblue]

can we not just close this thread and open a new one … PROSPECTIVE NEW OWNERS ….. This is just depressing !

 

[Blue_in_london]

Feels like we are trying to get someone to buy the Rover 75 of clubs...we have little appeal.

Very apt...think rover 75 final ad was 'you don't have to be a millionaire. But you might feel like one'

...but you're not and have zero funds!

 

[Hellerad]

2 more notes:

1. The Plaintiff failed to attach the underlying loan agreements, which will result in a dismissal or amendment to add them. Either way, I can’t read them yet.

2. The “photoshopped” bank statement allegation looks like an overstatement. The statements they attached as exhibits to support the allegation don’t support the allegation. They reflect accounts with substantial credits and debits on a monthly basis. They aren’t the same report screen as what 777 produced, so they don’t show the same data.

 

[mikel_88]

I thought according to reports that the PL cant refuse or deny them, hence them just putting conditions into the deal.

I thought with the case if the money has been from others because if fraud or whatever then they can fail. Honestly no idea

 

[Hellerad]

Buyers of sports franchises almost always have a huge foundation of money generated by the assets they hold or just cash they have generated from earlier assets. 777 just seems to borrow constantly and move money around. That eventually crashes and burns when all the creditors want paid at the same time because they realize you have duped them.

This is sort of true with 777 and sort of not. The layering of the business lets them invest reinsurance pools into other 777 ventures. They use those investments on a varied portfolio of investments which include their sporting acquisitions.

But it also is a structure limited by cash flow. They don’t have a steady income stream, rather they have to wait for premiums to replenish the reinsurance pool and then shift those to investment arms of the business.

To mitigate their cash flow issues, they borrow on lines of credit. This works while profits are coming in, and doesn’t work when they overextend or an investment tanks and they have to eat a loss.

 

[Exeter_Gently]

No, me old mate. Nonsense. These seeds were sown 25 years ago when Kenwright walked into the boardroom. Who knows who Kenwright got into bed with to keep hold of the club? Things have just unravelled now he's dead.

Quite

 

[Exeter_Gently]

can we not just close this thread and open a new one … PROSPECTIVE NEW OWNERS ….. This is just depressing !

Until we're told the deal is off it's still on.

 

[peteblue]

I just read the complaint. To me, it’s mostly wild ramblings complaining about the corporate structure of reinsurance and several clear misunderstandings about the nature and power of a first lienholder. They twist these into a conspiracy narrative that I don’t think holds up under scrutiny.

I think it’s clear that the Plaintiff failed to do basic due diligence on its lending and is shocked to learn it’s not first in line when a basic search of UCC financing statements and the international equivalent would have given them a heads up.

They rely on some generic boilerplate definitions of “equity” in corporate asset layering that comes off as a bit naive to me.

Their own timeline also shows they knew about some of this for 3 years before filing suit and continued to lend to 777. The fact that Wanders let them record these meetings suggests it wasn’t fraud.

But the Complaint also raises some serious accusations that stand on their own regardless:

1. falsified financial account balance statements: if true, deadly to 777

2. collateral being sold without notice to the Plaintiff: fraud if proven

3. collateral “not existing”: fraud if proven

Most disturbing is the apparent lack of liquidity. 777 is clearly overextended and will have to liquidate assets or refinance to cover around $610M in credit that is being called in because of the collateralization issue.

I think a bigger danger is if regulators dig into 777s liquidity. Their reinsurance business requires pretty strict reserves.

Excellent post….

 

[pfim]

This is sort of true with 777 and sort of not. The layering of the business lets them invest reinsurance pools into other 777 ventures. They use those investments on a varied portfolio of investments which include their sporting acquisitions.

But it also is a structure limited by cash flow. They don’t have a steady income stream, rather they have to wait for premiums to replenish the reinsurance pool and then shift those to investment arms of the business.

To mitigate their cash flow issues, they borrow on lines of credit. This works while profits are coming in, and doesn’t work when they overextend or an investment tanks and they have to eat a loss.

But this is why reinsurance firms in the past have not invested those premiums in illiquid, risky and/or cash burning businesses. I would also assume they have little or no recourse should a company like ACap want to close out their position.

It was always disingenuous of them to state they invest their own money in these acquisitions, it was never their money.

 

[Walken]

No, me old mate. Nonsense. These seeds were sown 25 years ago when Kenwright walked into the boardroom. Who knows who Kenwright got into bed with to keep hold of the club? Things have just unravelled now he's dead.

That it's his pal the pension thief Phillip Green and the generous deal Bill gave him, cost us any hope of keeping away from 777, shows how much damage kenwright really did