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
davek said:
As did the KD, and that went west on matters of the club not being in control of its own finances and destiny...obviously that doesn't apply now with the BMD scheme....hold on....
Click to expand...

Only you, Dave, could compare the BMD project with all the failed projects under Kenwright and reach the conclusion that Kenwright was a financially astute football club owner.
 
Foot Long Hot Dog said:
Kirkby only had political support in Knowsley. It had strong opposition from the off, from Liverpool and notably the landed gentry who own L1.

It's failure had nothing to do with the club not being in control of its destiny and finances, you've just made that up....
Click to expand...
I didn't link its failure to that, though. Straw man etc etc
 

JLW said:
Where do you see Everton FC in 3 years time under this regime on and off the field?
Where could you see Everton FC in 3 years time under the last regime on and off the field?
Click to expand...
Who knows with this lot. You dont and I dont. My point is: why wave through rich men and fail to question their acts?
 
davek said:
That explains nothing about why he hasn't exercised it. 'Reports' were that he was waiting for the Prudential debt to be paid off and he didn't want that landing at his feet, but then he pays it off anyway and still doesn't take up 75%, so we know nothing at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
It does explain it, you're just choosing to ignore the obvious. He patently can't take up the stake until the conditions are met, the exact terms aren't in the public domain, but the fact that the other shareholders could force him to take their shares is.
 
davek said:
No, the £30M was in reach. The boardroom struggle over the control of the club killed it off.
Click to expand...
Kenwright thought the costings were way too low and that the funding package carried too much risk, given our precarious position in the top flight at that time.

Looking back his prudence was a complete failure as the figures were chicken feed in the current PL. it's highly ironic that you're advocating the same stance over BMD.
 

davek said:
Everyone should be sceptical of football club owners - isn't that the lesson of history? The amount of horror stories that have occurred as a result of greedy or malicious governance are there for all to learn from. It's our duty to critique every move. I put it to you that if we saw someone at another club - a billionaire owner - doing what Moshiri is doing in fire-walling himself from any liability from a stadium build and rather exposing their club's revenue for decades in order to get a stadium built - you and others would take a sideways look at it and at the very least state your reservations. I dont care how clever the structure f the deal is, things can and do go wrong. The football bubble is somehow seen as one that can keep on defying the rules of the game and grow exponentially in perpetuity, but it cant. And neither can clubs guarantee that even if it did then it will have its snout in the trough of it.

As for the rest of the shareholders: what's the point of asking questions of them (or shall I say 'more questions')? We know what they are - unfit to govern in every single way (retained by Moshiri and even promoted, btw), so it's like barking at the moon having a go at them. But Moshiri is in charge now. He's been credited with every major move thats happened since he arrived so he carries the weight of this one too.

Bottom line is that we need to remain vigilant, not hand a blank cheque of goodwill to a man we really know next to nothing of in terms of his real intentions with EFC.
Click to expand...

Dave, the points you make here are well constructed, well written, coherent and without personal insult.

I and I suspect most others have no argument with debate made in the above manner whatsoever and indeed, when a different opinion or alternative viewpoint is expressed so eloquently, I applaud it.

By all means you are entitled to have doubts or concerns as you perceive things, for me personally that's fine. But please try and refrain from undermining your position and belittling your argument with cheap insults.

Enjoy the sunshine ;)
 
** Reality check**
The options and attendant charges are still live at 21 March according to the companies registry at gov.im

We don't know the triggering clauses, or when the expiration date is - could be years off.

The documents were delivered by an escrow agent. Inference is, the money is there.

The options cannot take BHHL to 75%.

The 49.9% holding was probably to circumvent a change in ownership which would have had ramifications re the Pru. Fact that the charge wasn't satisfied until early Oct may well mean that 6 months notice was required to avoid penalties.

Like Fordstam loan to Chelsea, the 80mil loan cannot stay on the BS forever (PL rules I believe) the most likely outcome being a share issue.

The loan could not reasonably be expected to be paid out before other liabilities if the future of the business looked in doubt. This would set up a preferential treatment scenario.

If you want to know anything more about any of the above, vault me.
 
hibbo'sclass said:
** Reality check**
The options and attendant charges are still live at 21 March according to the companies registry at gov.im

We don't know the triggering clauses, or when the expiration date is - could be years off.

The documents were delivered by an escrow agent. Inference is, the money is there.

The options cannot take BHHL to 75%.

The 49.9% holding was probably to circumvent a change in ownership which would have had ramifications re the Pru. Fact that the charge wasn't satisfied until early Oct may well mean that 6 months notice was required to avoid penalties.

Like Fordstam loan to Chelsea, the 80mil loan cannot stay on the BS forever (PL rules I believe) the most likely outcome being a share issue.

The loan could not reasonably be expected to be paid out before other liabilities if the future of the business looked in doubt. This would set up a preferential treatment scenario.

If you want to know anything more about any of the above, vault me.
Click to expand...
I like your financial posts Hibbo,it makes me feel intelligent reading them,tho I dont have a kin clue what they mean
 
davek said:
No, the £30M was in reach. The boardroom struggle over the control of the club killed it off.
Click to expand...

BK was his usual unambitious self and didn't take the risk as it had to be all about him.

Moshiri has made the next step and got a viable and exciting stadium plan off the ground. Plenty more for him to do and more we need to see from him but thank frig our current custodian actually has some forward thinking and ambition unlike BK who is a disgrace.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top