Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Farhad Moshiri

7+ Years On... Your Verdict On Farhad Moshiri

  • Pleased

    Votes: 107 7.7%
  • Disappointed

    Votes: 1,290 92.3%

  • Total voters
    1,397
From my understanding the echo article from the financial expert is right, why would someone put money into the club when he isn't the majority share holder?? The money put in either needs to be matched by others or that there is a deal in place to buyer other shares in the immediate future to own the club.

Strictly speaking, that's right, but the reality is likely to be different. I suspect any money he puts in will end up with him owning more equity, so making him a majority shareholder and what we're seeing at the moment is just the first step.
 
Even if this was a hostile tackover ie he had no agreement with other shareholders that they would support his actions, which is clearly not the case as he at the very least has Woods/Kenwright backing, it would take an unusual mobilization of all other shareholders to block him.
I'm sorry I'm lost, I don't once think this is a hostile takeover.
 
I discovered the 6 who strangely voted "No".

efc.jpg

lol
 

Strictly speaking, that's right, but the reality is likely to be different. I suspect any money he puts in will end up with him owning more equity, so making him a majority shareholder and what we're seeing at the moment is just the first step.
Yes this is what I believe and trying to say. It'll be interesting to see where he gets the shares from
 
From my understanding the echo article from the financial expert is right, why would someone put money into the club when he isn't the majority share holder?

Because it was the only way he could get his foot in the door. He has the power. Forget the myths about them stopping him. Getting 100+ shareholders to band together isn't going to happen.

People focusing on things that are red herrings. The fact he owns 49.9% would only be an issue if there was one other shareholder holding 50.1%. There isn't. The rest of the 50.1% shareholding in the club is split between 100+ shareholders.
 

I'm sorry I'm lost, I don't once think this is a hostile takeover.
Sorry what I was meaning is that I believe there are two reasons to get a majority shareholding.

One is so that he can effective control of the decisions to be made for future of the club, which he effectively got even if not absolutely as it isn't over 50%.

The second is the maximising profit aspect of it, the danger of having other investors profit off your actions without pitching in themselves. However that second part can be accomplished over a period of time in parallel with progressing things like the stadium/commercial deals now that the first has been achieved - it didn't have to be done all at the start and the Pru loan might have meant there were valid reasons for not doing so.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top