Farhad Moshiri

[The Esk]

Staying below 50%, or 51%, meant that the club didnt have to rearrange loans and stuff, and PL rules, and stuff like that iirc.

thanks,makes me even more suspicious!
got to give moshiri time,
but all iv seen is a load of talk,
iv seen so many false dawns before,
hope im wrong on this one!

I think it has more to do with going over 50% would trigger certain company takeover rules that is to say comercial not FA.

Taking more than 49.9% would have triggered a change of ownership/control clause in the long term debt which was not desirable at the time.

It has nothing to do with takeover rules (Everton is a private company) nor does it have anything to do with Premier League rules. The options agreement he has will take him to circa 75% when he exercises them.

 

[roydo]

Yeah, I was basically giving his response from months ago in my limited way!

Taking more than 49.9% would have triggered a change of ownership/control clause in the long term debt which was not desirable at the time.

It has nothing to do with takeover rules (Everton is a private company) nor does it have anything to do with Premier League rules. The options agreement he has will take him to circa 75% when he exercises them.

See?

 

[blue61]

Taking more than 49.9% would have triggered a change of ownership/control clause in the long term debt which was not desirable at the time.

It has nothing to do with takeover rules (Everton is a private company) nor does it have anything to do with Premier League rules. The options agreement he has will take him to circa 75% when he exercises them.

Are there any indications as to when he intends to excercise these options, other than guesswork or heresay?

 

[The Esk]

Are there any indications as to when he intends to excercise these options, other than guesswork or heresay?

There's nothing in the public domain, most talk is related to progress on the stadium and/or "x" amount of investment into the club. It is thought the options have a two year term but anticipated that they will be exercised much sooner possibly in line with stadium announcements.

 

[blue61]

There's nothing in the public domain, most talk is related to progress on the stadium and/or "x" amount of investment into the club. It is thought the options have a two year term but anticipated that they will be exercised much sooner possibly in line with stadium announcements.

Cheers Esk, pretty much guesswork and heresay then. The sooner the better for me, it would confirm new ownership and consign the old regime to the dustbin. My fear is the gap between now and then may be a tad longer than many hope for.

 

[ToffeeDoug]

Taking more than 49.9% would have triggered a change of ownership/control clause in the long term debt which was not desirable at the time.

It has nothing to do with takeover rules (Everton is a private company) nor does it have anything to do with Premier League rules. The options agreement he has will take him to circa 75% when he exercises them.

Will FM go straight from 49.9% to 75% in one go, or are there several triggers each with a % step along the way to 75%?

 

[roydo]

Will FM go straight from 49.9% to 75% in one go

Always think of our Argentinian defender when that is used!

 

[KUEFC09U2]

There's nothing in the public domain, most talk is related to progress on the stadium and/or "x" amount of investment into the club. It is thought the options have a two year term but anticipated that they will be exercised much sooner possibly in line with stadium announcements.

What if for some unknown reason he decides against the options and allows the 2 years to elapse?

 

[The Esk]

Will FM go straight from 49.9% to 75% in one go, or are there several triggers each with a % step along the way to 75%?

Can't think of any reason why once he triggers a majority holding he wouldn't exercise all the options mate, unless the agreement relates to progressive trigger points which I very much doubt.

 

[The Esk]

What if for some unknown reason he decides against the options and allows the 2 years to elapse?

Then BK, JW and AA have the option to keep their remaining shares or sell in the market to other potential buyers.

 

[KUEFC09U2]

Then BK, JW and AA have the option to keep their remaining shares or sell in the market to other potential buyers.

Much chance of that happening?

 

[Eggs]

Taking more than 49.9% would have triggered a change of ownership/control clause in the long term debt which was not desirable at the time.

It has nothing to do with takeover rules (Everton is a private company) nor does it have anything to do with Premier League rules. The options agreement he has will take him to circa 75% when he exercises them.

....question from me please; for whatever reason, was there a dependency on getting the Stones money in or was it a coincidence that our transfer activity seemed to ramp up after he had transferred to City?

 

[Goat]

As is to expect him to change the world in 6 months.

And there, in essence, you have the two sides to the core argument on this thread...

Hence me trying very hard to stay out of it, but its like crack bruh.

 

[mikeyl]

Given the level of appointments BK made previously coupled with his limited finances the likely level would have been Eddie Howe.
"RK is the No 1 target and will be given £100m to spend." Can't imagine such headlines under BK somehow.

100m wasn't touched. Neither was TV money, it was evident to see in KOEMAN'S press conference he'd fallen out with Southampton's management team.


Moyes and Martinez have been paid very well.

Koeman could of left for money alone, new challenge is a reason he could of left. We are a bigger club, but to deluded yourself with no evidence about 100m, is laughable.

 

[The Esk]

....question from me please; for whatever reason, was there a dependency on getting the Stones money in or was it a coincidence that our transfer activity seemed to ramp up after he had transferred to City?

Fair question mate.

I don't believe for a second there was any dependency on Stones being sold in order to fund our own acquisitions. Why do I say this? (i) because Moshiri had made funds available (ii) we were bidding and expected to close acquisitions (like Witsel) long before Stones was sold (iii) if we were dependent upon Stones being sold we would have done so much earlier in the window and not held on for the period of time we did given the activity and expectation of landing players earlier in the window and (iv) we were bidding and anticipating signing players after we had used the funds made available from Stones' sale.