Of course I think he's admitted it now.. but being flippant he's now saying vibrac loans were investment... no that's because our board were financially incompetent..So he does loan them money??
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.
Of course I think he's admitted it now.. but being flippant he's now saying vibrac loans were investment... no that's because our board were financially incompetent..So he does loan them money??
Of course I think he's admitted it now.. but being flippant he's now saying vibrac loans were investment... no that's because our board were financially incompetent..
On paper he does, but he is a special case I think (insofar as nobody ever expects him to call it in, given his behaviour over the last 15 yrs)So he does loan them money??
On paper he does, but he is a special case I think (insofar as nobody ever expects him to call it in, given his behaviour over the last 15 yrs)
But it's not though is it?So it is a loan, exactly what Moshiri has done. Glad that's cleared up
But it's not though is it?
RA has no intention of being paid back. Moshiri? Not so much
But it's not though is it. The two situations whilst appearing The same are actually quite differentWell it is, because he loaned money to Chelsea via a holding company. It's there in black and white. Unless you can prove otherwise
Not really. Unless you can prove otherwise of course.But it's not though is it. The two situations whilst appearing The same are actually quite different
Fine, they are the same. RA is going to bankrupt Chelsea, or Farhad has just gifted us 80mNot really. Unless you can prove otherwise of course.
But it's not though is it?
RA has no intention of being paid back. Moshiri? Not so much
But it's not though is it. The two situations whilst appearing The same are actually quite different
Yes, but RA is a special case. Highly unusually, he is not going to call in that loan.This charade can go on no longer. The simple question is: did Roman loan Chelsea FC money via a holding company?
The answer is yes, therefore a loan agreement is in place
Yes, but RA is a special case. Highly unusually, he is not going to call in that loan.
Our guy like the rest of tHe populationis going to call it in.
So I can say that Chelsea to all intents and purposes can treat that loan as investment because tHey know it will never be called in.
But by doing it this way any other commercial money we get in can be used to improve things on the pitch. Surely that's good isn't it?
...and you haven't allowed for the possibility of opening the club up to a share issue or offering something like a debenture issue for seats which could cut down the need for institutional borrowing.And you haven't answered about who should pay for the stadium...moshiri out of his own pocket... which no other owner has done... or Everton themselves...
Also spurs' turnover is a hell of a lot more than ours so not a fair comparison.. without checking but from memory it's about double ours? But I stand to be corrected
We are playing catch up with the likes of spurs due to chronic lack of board knowledge of how to move us forward commercially and financially. We could never hope to so what spurs have done in terms of funding.. . This is probably the best deal we could get. And the risk to both council and Everton is minimal really.. unless the club totally Implodes and I think none of us want that!!
But how can you say either are true?Fine, they are the same. RA is going to bankrupt Chelsea, or Farhad has just gifted us 80m