Farhad Moshiri

MikeH72 · April 28, 2017

ashwuk76 · April 28, 2017

davek said:
The land was to be provided by Knowsley.

davek said:
Dress it up all you like. Everton will have to pay that cash back to Moshiri. In everyday life that is called a debt that needs repaying. And it will be.

I love all the tortuous semantics to make it look like he's some Blue Knight riding to the rescue. He'll lose no money being involved in Everton, none. And he'll walk away with a massive profit eventually. Still, if the fairy stories make you feel better about the situation, be my guest...

Lololololololol

pablo 1878 · April 28, 2017

davek said:
If it happens then it's all good. But until then scepticism is not exactly irrational.

Scepticism is not irrational. Posting the same thing over and over again on a forum day in day out is completely irrational

4737carlin · April 28, 2017

davek said:
Dress it up all you like. Everton will have to pay that cash back to Moshiri. In everyday life that is called a debt that needs repaying. And it will be.

I love all the tortuous semantics to make it look like he's some Blue Knight riding to the rescue. He'll lose no money being involved in Everton, none. And he'll walk away with a massive profit eventually. Still, if the fairy stories make you feel better about the situation, be my guest...

Good, I hope he dosent lose money, we want him to be successful, we want Everton to be successful, well some of us do....

Thuck ma Baws · April 28, 2017

Foot Long Hot Dog said:
It's a free of charge Directors loan with no repayment schedule, you patently don't understand how stakeholders INVEST in their own businesses.

Also no security on it either I don't think. If it was ever intended to be paid back then Moshiri is a moron for the way he's done it. And I doubt that.

a bell maul · April 28, 2017

davek said:
Dress it up all you like. Everton will have to pay that cash back to Moshiri. In everyday life that is called a debt that needs repaying. And it will be.

I love all the tortuous semantics to make it look like he's some Blue Knight riding to the rescue. He'll lose no money being involved in Everton, none. And he'll walk away with a massive profit eventually. Still, if the fairy stories make you feel better about the situation, be my guest...

I suspect the debt will be converted to equity at some stage (via a rights issue?). As 'only' a 49.9% equity holder, his injection of capital via debt is sensible in the interim.
As an aside, I'm wondering whether his present non-majority positioning is regardful toward Everton's accumulated tax loss position, (but I'm not au fait enough with British tax law to have any certainty on this).
The debt will be paid back? Yes, most certainly...but via enhanced equity value.

ilikecheese · April 28, 2017

davek said:
Dress it up all you like. Everton will have to pay that cash back to Moshiri. In everyday life that is called a debt that needs repaying. And it will be.

I love all the tortuous semantics to make it look like he's some Blue Knight riding to the rescue. He'll lose no money being involved in Everton, none. And he'll walk away with a massive profit eventually. Still, if the fairy stories make you feel better about the situation, be my guest...

Why is it seemingly necessary in your view for the owner to lose money? I would imagine he will continue to invest money to make money.

davek · April 28, 2017

a bell maul said:
I suspect the debt will be converted to equity at some stage (via a rights issue?). As 'only' a 49.9% equity holder, his injection of capital via debt is sensible in the interim.
As an aside, I'm wondering whether his present non-majority positioning is regardful toward Everton's accumulated tax loss position, (but I'm not au fait enough with British tax law to have any certainty on this).
The debt will be paid back? Yes, most certainly...but via enhanced equity value.

Yep. A debt's a debt's a debt. It'll be paid by whatever means he chooses it to be paid to him.

davek · April 28, 2017

ilikecheese said:
Why is it seemingly necessary in your view for the owner to lose money? I would imagine he will continue to invest money to make money.

It's not a necessity for me. What gave you that idea?

Armaghtoffee · April 28, 2017

davek said:
Yep. A debt's a debt's a debt. It'll be paid by whatever means he chooses it to be paid to him.

That's the business world though Dave. Everton don't have a rich uncle who slips £300m into their birthday card.

He is already facilitating new money into the club and will do so again once the stadium gets planning permission. Of course he will make a wedge by doing so but he will have transformed Everton in the process.

Fair enough by me.

davek · April 28, 2017

Armaghtoffee said:
That's the business world though Dave. Everton don't have a rich uncle who slips £300m into their birthday card.

He is already facilitating new money into the club and will do so again once the stadium gets planning permission. Of course he will make a wedge by doing so but he will have transformed Everton in the process.

Fair enough by me.

There's a lot of assumptions there ^^^.

A 49% stake in the club; net spending kept down; stands aside from direct stadium involvement in the deal cut; no involvement at boardroom level.

It's as though he's here, but he's not here.

Place me in the 'not altogether convinced' column.

ilikecheese · April 28, 2017

davek said:
It's not a necessity for me. What gave you that idea?

Just based off of the post I quoted you seem to think it's a bad thing if Mosh doesn't lose money at Everton. Like he's not doing a good job unless he does.

Maybe I misread it, but:

"He'll lose no money being involved in Everton, none. And he'll walk away with a massive profit eventually."

For me it seems pretty clear that unless he loses money, it's bad for Everton in your view. Sorry if I'm not reading it the way you intended.

Armaghtoffee · April 28, 2017

davek said:
There's a lot of assumptions there ^^^.

A 49% stake in the club; net spending kept down; stands aside from direct stadium involvement in the deal cut; no involvement at boardroom level.

It's as though he's here, but he's not here.

Place me in the 'not altogether convinced' column.

Let time be our judge Dave

duncs pigeon · April 28, 2017

davek said:
There's a lot of assumptions there ^^^.

A 49% stake in the club; net spending kept down; stands aside from direct stadium involvement in the deal cut; no involvement at boardroom level.

It's as though he's here, but he's not here.

Place me in the 'not altogether convinced' column.

Who would you like to see at the helm?
Im not having a go at your comments, we all have opinions. Just an inquisitive question.

davek · April 28, 2017

ilikecheese said:
Just based off of the post I quoted you seem to think it's a bad thing if Mosh doesn't lose money at Everton. Like he's not doing a good job unless he does.

Maybe I misread it, but:

"He'll lose no money being involved in Everton, none. And he'll walk away with a massive profit eventually."

For me it seems pretty clear that unless he loses money, it's bad for Everton in your view. Sorry if I'm not reading it the way you intended.

No mate, there was no value judgement on the matter. As long as he doesn't asset strip the club or walk away leaving us in a financial mess then I accept he's a businessman and he's involved with us to make money eventually.