Everton change bridging loan from Barclays to company in BVI

[davek]

I'm sorry to say, but the story isn't that ridiculous. I'm sure there are hundreds of companies registered to that specific address.

And how in the world is the reporter supposed to check who owns that company or is running it? It's likely not even a company, by the common definition. It's probably little more than a piece of paper.

That was my point...which is why I said it!

 

[pfim]

That was my point...which is why I said it!

He can't be arsed to check facts, or there is no way to check them? Which one are you going with here?

 

[davek]

He can't be arsed to check facts, or there is no way to check them? Which one are you going with here?

The latter.

Some people are tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists for making an educated guess at the likely source of this loan in lieu of proof that cant possibly be gained (which is the reason for running it through BVI in the first place); but Prentice is stating as fact it's not Earl behind it or arranging it.

 

[pfim]

The latter.

Some people are tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists for making an educated guess at the likely source of this loan in lieu of proof that cant possibly be gained (which is the reason for running it through BVI in the first place); but Prentice is stating as fact it's not Earl behind it or arranging it.

He's obviously the mouthpiece for someone on the board, who would know. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I have a hard time believing someone would blatantly lie to him about information that may be very difficult to corroborate, but still possible.

I honestly don't see the need for proof of anything in this instance, but understand we don't agree.

1. It's entirely likely that this company has nothing to do with Robert Earl. These lawyers incorporate hundreds of entities yearly for multiple clients.

2. As I stated before, even if this was a loan made by a director, he should have every right to collect interest. This is standard practice world-wide, there would be nothing nefarious taking place.

 

[Wratho]

Ok so through all this crap the point is this...

We take a loan out every year for for ~13m. We took out one this year for 14 m. This is not a new practice or new loan on top of what we normally do.

There should be no issue who owns the company loaning the money. The interest rate is lower than the one we had last year. So that means if it is Elstone he is giving Everton a better rate than we were getting last year....

What the hell does it matter who owns the company we got the loan from when the rate is lower and it is a loan we do every year?

 

[davek]

Ok so through all this crap the point is this...

We take a loan out every year for for ~13m. We took out one this year for 14 m. This is not a new practice or new loan on top of what we normally do.

There should be no issue who owns the company loaning the money. The interest rate is lower than the one we had last year. So that means if it is Elstone he is giving Everton a better rate than we were getting last year....

What the hell does it matter who owns the company we got the loan from when the rate is lower and it is a loan we do every year?

Pretty much my point from much earlier in this thread:

It's simple enough: Everton have shifted lending institutions who provide this bridging loan. Now it's shifted again and the deal seems to be that instead of Everton paying £1.6M pa for that *priviledge* we now pay £1.3M to a club director.

Now you can only arrive at this point: do you think the saving of £0.3M is acceptable if it means that £1.3m is going to a club director? That's the moral hazard here. I know what I think.

 

[Matt Damon]

The latter.

Some people are tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists for making an educated guess at the likely source of this loan in lieu of proof that cant possibly be gained (which is the reason for running it through BVI in the first place); but Prentice is stating as fact it's not Earl behind it or arranging it.

Some people Dave?

Really, some people?

 

[Seamus Colemole]

Pretty much my point from much earlier in this thread:

So basically after a year is up and we've paid this loan off, instead of a bank getting £1.3 million one of our directors gets £1.3 million?

Great, maybe this time next year we can afford to get a loan in.

Lend us a million quid mate :

oh and a go on the hot blonde bird please.

 

[davek]

He's obviously the mouthpiece for someone on the board, who would know. I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I have a hard time believing someone would blatantly lie to him about information that may be very difficult to corroborate, but still possible.

I honestly don't see the need for proof of anything in this instance, but understand we don't agree.

1. It's entirely likely that this company has nothing to do with Robert Earl. These lawyers incorporate hundreds of entities yearly for multiple clients.

2. As I stated before, even if this was a loan made by a director, he should have every right to collect interest. This is standard practice world-wide, there would be nothing nefarious taking place.

Is it possible to acquire that information though?

Prentice is getting fed a line and is only too willing to pass it on would be my guess.

 

[davek]

Some people Dave?

Really, some people?

Three words: Bill's scouting fees.

endex.

 

[davek]

So basically after a year is up and we've paid this loan off, instead of a bank getting £1.3 million one of our directors gets £1.3 million?

Great, maybe this time next year we can afford to get a loan in.

Lend us a million quid mate :

oh and a go on the hot blonde bird please.

In the words of Dave Prentice, any such loan would ' not be a new loan...'. It'd be called something else I think...Harry, or Reg or Bobby.

 

[pfim]

Is it possible to acquire that information though?

Prentice is getting fed a line and is only too willing to pass it on would be my guess.

It would be possible for another person to leak that information, yes.

 

[davek]

It would be possible for another person to leak that information, yes.

How likely is that though? Pretty remote I'd suggest. Only political interference - as with Leeds United's shadow directors running operations out of an offshore account being outed through pressure on the Sports minister - could swing that.

 

[Matt Damon]

Three words: Bill's scouting fees.

endex.

Didn't you claim we were going into administration in February?


Some people Dave? Some?

 

[jceverton]

Is it possible to acquire that information though?

Prentice is getting fed a line and is only too willing to pass it on would be my guess.

That's pretty much the way I see it. The guy is a full time journalist with close contacts to Everton. Therefore I would expect if he is going to come out and say this stuff that he actually quotes Robert Earl stating that he has nothing to do with the loan or at the very least quoting someone from the club stating this. Surely it's pretty basic stuff for a journalist?