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
What were people expecting to happen in Moshiri's first six months, and were these unrealistic expectations to turn around a club of limited means for such a long time?

Everyone is criticising him because he didn't get his number 1 target for DOF/manager, but aiming high is not a bad thing, it shows he has ambition. He secured Koeman and Walsh who for the last few seasons have both been excellent at their jobs.

The transfer window was disappointing, but we'll have to learn from that and push on. If we have more repeats of that window, then it will be time to ask more serious questions of Moshiri, but let's be honest, it's not a buyer's market at the moment and we weren't the only side to struggle to improve the squad.

Behind the scenes, aside from whispers, it is difficult to know what plans are being advanced with regards to stadium talks and clearing the debt. I tend not to buy into the speculation on either side, but it does seem clear that Moshiri has genuine plans in this regard so let's wait and see what unfolds - this will not be overnight.
 
My biggest fear was that we would be just another investment, the fella has many fingers in many pies and my fear was always that he wouldnt be hands on and would "trust" in certain people to take his investment forward. In the Summer these fears were realised IMO, he watched as we stumbled from failure to failure and we are left with a squad lacking in any depth.

His investment didnt take a hit, infact it probably increased without him doing a single thing, the club paid the old manager off, the club paid for the new manager and the club paid for the new DoF, John Stones paid for a our transfer dealings, thanks for that Mr Moyes. So, as far as first impressions go he would have been better getting his penis out in the GSE and waving it around, thats the lack of impression hes made on me.

But you know, to use a line from a certain square headed weapon, we go again, lets see what the fella does, lets see if he soothes my fears, im sure he doesnt care, but im watching you Venkyboy.
 
My biggest fear was that we would be just another investment, the fella has many fingers in many pies and my fear was always that he wouldnt be hands on and would "trust" in certain people to take his investment forward. In the Summer these fears were realised IMO, he watched as we stumbled from failure to failure and we are left with a squad lacking in any depth.

But of course the way in which limited companies work is through the separation of ownership and management - the shareholders appoint the directors to act in their best interests and realise their investment. It comes down to whether Moshiri has the right people in those positions and whether he holds them accountable, rather than whether he is "hands on" himself.
 
But of course the way in which limited companies work is through the separation of ownership and management - the shareholders appoint the directors to act in their best interests and realise their investment. It comes down to whether Moshiri has the right people in those positions and whether he holds them accountable, rather than whether he is "hands on" himself.
Don't think it's that simple if the director is a shareholder.
If the board vote a director who is a shareholder off, the person could make waves and possibly go to court on a s994 CA 2006 "prejudicing my interests" kick if they could make a case.
If FM wanted to remove a director who wasn't voted off by the board, he has to use s168 &169 CA 2006 procedure, which is fine but a little cumbersome. S994, rinse and repeat possibly.

Just musings and will apologise unreservedly if talking nonsense.
*edit - also assumes no Bushell v Faith clause in the Articles. Pretty sure there isn't.
 
Last edited:

lets hope he proves us bedwetters wrong, I would love him to be our saviour but he's not doing with some of the clowns who earn a hefty wage in the upper echelons of the club.

He would do well to see off some of the awful track records at the club and bringing in proven success',
 
I was assuming we'll see a huge investment once he increases his 49.9% stake.

Rhetorical question, Grouch.

Why is there a delay in him acquiring these extra shares?

Why has he not already bought even the extra 1% needed to assume overall control?

It doesn't make much sense on the face of it.
 
One reason that was put forward for the 49.9% share take up by FH, was that a change in ownership may require a renegotiation or repayment of the Pru loan. This, if true, also acts as a bar to issuing new ordinary shares in the same class and with the same rights as the existing ones, as it potentially triggers the change of ownership clause. It is also a possible reason why at the 19th September, the charges and details of charges regarding share options were still undischarged at the IOM registry.
@Khalekan Hopefully this helps.
 

It certainly does if indeed that is the case, Hibbo.

Cheers, pal ;)

Though one would think that a new arrangement re the loan could have been negotiated by now, nearly seven months later.
Possibly has - but is there any point in paying it off at this time is the question.
Just personal opinion, but doesn't make sense in cash-flow terms. It may have been paid off, but the indicators are that it hasn't as GPSL, EIL and the charges backing up the loan still exist - but with it being EFC could just be slack!!!
 
Seems to be widely accepted that the club failed in a number of its bids because players at the level we wanted weren't greedy enough to (as they saw it) drop a couple of levels and join us. (Haven't Liverpool given us the route map on this mistake for years past?)

If this is true (and I'm pretty sure it may be), how come the very well advised F M and the rest of the club's negotiators were simple minded enough to believe that they could get these people? Are they so blinded by the power of money that they can't spot the blindingly obvious from five yards out? Or did they all take a Master's in "fanboyism" & allow themselves to play in fantasy land?

Without a doubt, the club is better off now than it was: it doesn't have that deeply deluded chancer as manager and there is a chap who seems to know about transfers plying his trade, but, for every advance there seems to be an own goal. Elstone is still in position; Kenwright seems to exercise some influence and F M leaves himself wide open to ridicule through the White texts / tweets.

For me, his six month report reads, "Farhad has been a welcome addition to our group. I am encouraged by his willingness to take a leading part in our activities and hope that, with time, he will have the humility to accept that even the best intentioned make mistakes and that true progress will only be achieved when he learns from those mistakes rather than attempting to bluff his way through them."
 
Rhetorical question, Grouch.

Why is there a delay in him acquiring these extra shares?

Why has he not already bought even the extra 1% needed to assume overall control?

It doesn't make much sense on the face of it.
I was under the impression there was some sort of agreement in place for this to happen - maybe a time frame was included in this?
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top