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
Not sure about your maths. BK acquired shares at £857 each in March 2000 selling just over half to Moshiri for £5,000 a share.

That's more than 580% return or slightly over 10% per annum over 16 years.
Ok I thought I had read 200% somewhere but that just makes my point more valid.

The valuations of clubs continues to grow. Even if he doesn't invest anything more it will still be a good investment.
 
Because he is a business man. And as a business man I would hope he had the nous to turn us into a profitable business which sadly these days are the name of the game.
You are assuming the problem is Kenwright not having the keen business sense and being a bit of a moron.

I think that's the wrong assumption to make. The problem with Kenwright is that he didn't invest any money into the club meaning the club had to make short term decisions i.e. pay day loans, Goodison falling into disrepair, poor long term commercial deals that paid up front.

Without additional investment those factors won't have changed and it will be no different with the next guy.
 
Ok I thought I had read 200% somewhere but that just makes my point more valid.

The valuations of clubs continues to grow. Even if he doesn't invest anything more it will still be a good investment.

If it was his intention just to allow his investment to grow in line with the overall growth of PL club valuations he'd be better off keeping his £200 million exposure of Arsenal than swapping it for £87.5 million of exposure to Everton.

He can only have invested in Everton with the intention of providing further investment in the club. Why would you reduce your exposure to a growing market, swapping a market leader with earnings growth for a relative 'also ran' with flat non broadcasting revenues if it wasn't your intention to invest in it and develop the company?

Your theory makes no economic or investment sense.
 

If it was his intention just to allow his investment to grow in line with the overall growth of PL club valuations he'd be better off keeping his £200 million exposure of Arsenal than swapping it for £87.5 million of exposure to Everton.

He can only have invested in Everton with the intention of providing further investment in the club. Why would you reduce your exposure to a growing market, swapping a market leader with earnings growth for a relative 'also ran' with flat non broadcasting revenues if it wasn't your intention to invest in it and develop the company?

Your theory makes no economic or investment sense.
I think he will invest maybe not in the team but in the stadium for sure. This was just in response to the comment saying he didn't have to.
 
Can guarantee there'll be nowhere near the title this year I reckon, but it's all relative.

:) I like this opening sentence, you start so confidently and then you start to doubt yourself, then you just bail out altogether.

Can guarantee they'll be nowhere near the title this year!... I reckon... but it's all relative...
 
If it was his intention just to allow his investment to grow in line with the overall growth of PL club valuations he'd be better off keeping his £200 million exposure of Arsenal than swapping it for £87.5 million of exposure to Everton.

He can only have invested in Everton with the intention of providing further investment in the club. Why would you reduce your exposure to a growing market, swapping a market leader with earnings growth for a relative 'also ran' with flat non broadcasting revenues if it wasn't your intention to invest in it and develop the company?

Your theory makes no economic or investment sense.

It makes total sense im afraid, his shares increase in value every year the SKY deal is active, to use different examples.

Bill bought most of the club for 20m 16? years ago, I think he paid around 8m for his %, hes looking at a return of around 40m, give or take a few pennys, thats with ZERO investment.

Mosh and Ali paid around 80m for 15% of Arsenal, Mosh recently sold 15% for 200m, again, with ZERO investment.

Lets assume Moshiri gains 100% control, for around circa 200m, he can then build a new stadium, with loans and probably sell us in 5 years for triple that, he wouldnt need to invest a penny.

Whos to say he doesnt still own that 15% in Arsenal? He hasnt traded anything, hes added to his portfolio.

To say he must "invest" to make money is wrong sadly, I point you towards Manchester United, how much money did the Glaziers invest in United? and what is their likely return? The Yanks over the park?
 
Not sure why anyone would defend the fella with such vigour after seeing what's happened in his first 6 months of his tenure it seems to be pretty much business as usual for Everton F.C. . Not one thing out of the ordinary has been achieved, a few plusses have been made since his arrival but absolutely nothing to suggest he's going to be the man to take us back to the top, Zero, Zilch, Nada, Nish, Nil, Naught, Nothing.
 

It makes total sense im afraid, his shares increase in value every year the SKY deal is active, to use different examples.

Bill bought most of the club for 20m 16? years ago, I think he paid around 8m for his %, hes looking at a return of around 40m, give or take a few pennys, thats with ZERO investment.

Mosh and Ali paid around 80m for 15% of Arsenal, Mosh recently sold 15% for 200m, again, with ZERO investment.

Lets assume Moshiri gains 100% control, for around circa 200m, he can then build a new stadium, with loans and probably sell us in 5 years for triple that, he wouldnt need to invest a penny.

Whos to say he doesnt still own that 15% in Arsenal? He hasnt traded anything, hes added to his portfolio.

To say he must "invest" to make money is wrong sadly, I point you towards Manchester United, how much money did the Glaziers invest in United? and what is their likely return? The Yanks over the park?
I think you're spot on. And when the esk talks of 'investment' (what he's invested now and future investment) he's actually talking about the purchase of shares....the principal which he'll get back and then some on a future sale. That 'investment' is safe as houses as long as we dont get relegated.
 
The Esk. Can you answer and give me your honest opinion, do you think mosheri will change our current standing in the game, to one of the top teams in Europe, that includes a state of the art stadium?

My initial thoughts when he came, is this guy means business, however with the last transfer window we acted in a naive way whilst leaving business late, the bid for Yarmelenko smacks of desperation.

Big teams don't act like this.
 
It makes total sense im afraid, his shares increase in value every year the SKY deal is active, to use different examples.

It makes no sense to sell £200 million worth of Arsenal shares to buy £87.5 million worth of Everton shares that will continue to underperform without additional investment.

You don't make more money by buying less (in cash terms) of an inferior company than you previously owned without having an investment plan for your new acquisition.

To say he must "invest" to make money is wrong sadly, I point you towards Manchester United, how much money did the Glaziers invest in United? and what is their likely return? The Yanks over the park?

It's all about timing. The Glazers bought a premium asset at the beginning of a great bull market for Man United shares. There was sufficient cash flow not only so that they need not invest, they could borrow to finance their purchase. An entirely different proposition to a buyer of Everton today.
Whos to say he doesnt still own that 15% in Arsenal? He hasnt traded anything, hes added to his portfolio.

Both a regulated stock exchange, ISDX, and the Premier League know he has sold his R&W Holdings to Usmanov. It is ridiculous to suggest otherwise.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top