Farhad Moshiri

McBain · February 28, 2016

TAKE THAT SCUMBAGS

Oh sorry wrong thread

AJC5 · February 28, 2016

n01efc said:
But he doesn't own the club, why would he put money in only for others to reap the rewards from dividends from CL revenue etc. if we get there? He would need a lots more shares.

He might have an option to buy the other shares at an agreed price or he might put more money in by buying more shares in a rights issue which would increase his percentage ownership in the club.

On the flip side why would he buy 49% of a business with no intention of investing in it?

Verbal Kint · February 28, 2016

What a weekend, and we didn't even play.

Everton that

TommyDavo · February 28, 2016

Tramps_mate said:
People understand that being worth £1.3 billion doesn't mean you have it in the bank yeah?

I believe Mr Moores never spent his own money, but it is always easier to get cheap finance if you have some clout behind you. No more quick quid with a bit of luck

PhilM · February 28, 2016

Gwladys St. Glory said:
A chunk that size would be better used on the youth side, IMO...higher potential return for the outlay.

Another valid point. Either way, it means less money lost on expenditure which can be used across a variety of projects across the club.

Eggs · February 28, 2016

.....he's already asserting his influence in high places.

davek · February 28, 2016

MoutsGoat said:
Hes just stamping his feet demanding we know everything after a day.

Wouldnt be surprised if its @davek.

If in 6months we know nothing and nothing has happened, I might get worried, but im gonna give the fella more than a day.

Seems fair.

Please stop bullying me. Please...

Ring master · February 28, 2016

Verbal Kint said:
What a weekend, and we didn't even play.

Everton that

probably better we didnt,or we would have ruined our weekend lol

roydo · February 28, 2016

AJC5 said:
On the flip side why would he buy 49% of a business with no intention of investing in it?

He wouldnt. One possible reason, so I was told, is that a change of ownership, (51%) might trigger covenants in loans and stuff. So, make the intention clear, then sort out the boring details at your leisure.

bullensboy · February 28, 2016

They always find a way to out-trump us dont they...

Or used to !!!!!!!

Well, maybe Sturridge crying did out trump everything in the end !!

Eggs · February 28, 2016

roydo said:
He wouldnt. One possible reason, so I was told, is that a change of ownership, (51%) might trigger covenants in loans and stuff. So, make the intention clear, then sort out the boring details at your leisure.

....I might be talking rubbish but perhaps it also makes it easier for the league to endorse.

Goat · February 28, 2016

Eggs said:
....I might be talking rubbish but perhaps it also makes it easier for the league to endorse.

Honestly doubt that personally.

Goat · February 28, 2016

The test, introduced in 2004, is mandated by the Premier League, the Football League, the Football Conference and theScottish Premier League. Anybody who takes over a club, runs one, or owns over 30% of its shares must be assessed. The first director known to have failed the test was Dennis Coleman, director of Rotherham United when they went intoadministration in 2006 and 2008. He claimed:

"I came in and in effect saved the club. It is totally unfair for me to be disqualified."[3]

In November 2009, Stephen Vaughan, then owner of Chester City, became the first owner to fail the test, after he was legally disqualified from being a director of any company. This was a result of VAT fraud as owner of Widnes Vikings rugby club. He transferred control of Chester to his son, Stephen Vaughan, Jr.[4]

In March 2012, Rangers owner Craig Whyte was found not to be a fit and proper person as the result of an independent enquiry.[5]

In June 2014, Louis Tomlinson, former footballer and member of the boy band One Direction, and John Ryan, businessman and previous Chairman ofDoncaster Rovers, launched a bid to buy the club but one month later Ryan was found not to be a fit and proper person due to a lack of funding.[6]

Disqualifying events[edit]
The Premier League has tighter restrictions than the rest of the Football League and Football Conference. In general, a businessman will fail the test if:

They have power or influence over another Football League club
They hold a significant interest in another Football League club
They become prohibited by law from being a director
They are filing for bankruptcy
They have been director of a club while it has suffered two or more unconnected events of insolvency
They have been a director of two or more clubs of which, while they have been director, has suffered an event of insolvency