John Textor

[Damo_1878]

I'll be honest, I have no idea if you're correct.

One thing I'm sure of though is that any verbal agreement will not lead to any punishment.

You're wrong.

 

[bluestevon]

Why are you starting to go on about Usmanov? It's a pointless discussion. He's never legally owned Everton.

Sweet summer child.

 

[Blue peter]

You were talking about "blind trusts" so you were saying he could even though they're not allowed under Premier League rules covering "indirect" control and "by contract"

I'd suggest you pipe down. As you keep going on about stuff I've not said. All because you seem desperate for this to go through and don't want to hear otherwise

You’re a little inconsistent if you don’t mind me saying so. A common thread through of all your posts has been about how you won’t be quiet and how the club directly, or through Proxies, as well as posters on here have tried to strangle discussion yet you then tell some one to ‘pipe down’. Inconsistent. I’d suggest it is you who are trying to censor people.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether that be about the club, your posts or mine. You would have gone on a rant if someone had posted something similar to you so maybe you should practice what you preach.

 

[John from Bootle]

You're wrong.

Maybe.

Wouldn't the parties involved just keep their mouth shut? How would the PL go about proving their case? And how likely is it that both Moshiri and Textor are somehow not aware of these rules, and are yet to have any dialogue with the PL about the situation?

 

[Damo_1878]

You’re a little inconsistent if you don’t mind me saying so. A common thread through of all your posts has been about how you won’t be quiet and how the club directly, or through Proxies, as well as posters on here have tried to strangle discussion yet you then tell some one to ‘pipe down’. Inconsistent. I’d suggest it is you who are trying to censor people.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion whether that be about the club, your posts or mine. You would have gone on a rant if someone had posted something similar to you so maybe you should practice what you preach.

He's been going on and on about the same point for the last two days. It's been answered already multiple times and yet has been directly personal in his posts when he gets an answer he doesn't like. Examples below.

Such as that I'm being "unreasonable" simply because I'm saying something he doesn't like

Tough. As for the personal comments as well, he does need to pipe down.

Mate, you’re coming across quite badly here. You were adamant this couldn’t happen a few days ago. Absolutely adamant. It’s completely fine to speculate but you pretend to have access to information you don’t have. You’re basically Esk mark2

Not sure they read this forum pal or give a rat's ass about your opinions. You are mainly annoying other blues and not really contributing much other than hot air. You asserted that this deal can not happen in the strongest possible terms, foolishly in my opinion as you lack the information to make that assessment, and what little if any credibility you have on here will be destroyed if you prove to be incorrect.

Nothing. But you didn't leave it at that. You said it won't happen. Its a waste of time dealing with him. He doesn't have a buyer for his shares etc. etc. etc. and other unfounded hysterical nonsense. You're all in though at this stage.

Again what is controversial with saying it won't happen until he sells his Crystal Palace shares, of which there is zero evidence he is able to do?

I'll wait.

The evidence he can sell his shares is that we are prepared to talk to him and he is talking to us.

You are also being unreasonable because the only type of evidence you are willing to accept as a counter argument won't exist in this situation because of commercial confidentiality.

You can always ask as an outsider about any purchaser where is the evidence they are able to complete the transaction? Guess what, the evidence is that the parties are still talking. That's the best you can get without being involved in the process and privy to inside information. You're changing your argument to save face now because you know you overreached and look silly.

You’re not listening pal. We know your point and accept it as a factual statement. It had been made before and everyone is aware but if you feel the need to repeat it ad nauseum then crack on. You do you. But don’t play the Barry on here by making unwarranted assumptions and get pissy when people call you out on it.

 

[Damo_1878]

Maybe.

Wouldn't the parties involved just keep their mouth shut? How would the PL go about proving their case? And how likely is it that both Moshiri and Textor are somehow not aware of these rules, and are yet to have any dialogue with the PL about the situation?

The rules allow them to inspect documents by appointment. They could open a formal investigation if they think the rules are being breached. They could do it instigated by a complaint from other clubs in the league. That has already happened over PSR towards Everton, as well.

 

[John from Bootle]

The rules allow them to inspect documents by appointment. They could open a formal investigation if they think the rules are being breached. They could do it instigated by a complaint from other clubs in the league. That has already happened over PSR towards Everton, as well.

But they can look at all the documents they want. A verbal agreement, by it's very nature, means it's not documented, does it not?

 

[catcherintherye]

I've already said several times.

The agreement to sell to Textor by Moshiri - creates a beneficial interest

He needs to not own Crystal Palace shares BEFORE any agreement to buy shares in Everton is made, verbal or written as otherwise it breaches the "significant interest" definitions and falls foul of rule G.

Even agreeing to purchase the shares whilst he owns the Palace shares IS NOT ALLOWED

How can verbally agreeing something be a breach? Have you ever done any negotiation on deals? How is anyone going to police a verbal agreement?

And look, you didn't answer previously, does Textor own the voting shares that the PL rules outline as being the shares that create a significant interest? Like does he have 45% control over decisions taken at Crystal Palace? Or are there different classes of shares.

 

[Damo_1878]

But they can look at all the documents they want. A verbal agreement, by it's very nature, means it's not documented, does it not?

Yes but if they think that there is a conspiracy between the parties to breach the rules and an agreement exists that breaches the rules they could initiate disciplinary proceedings and put Moshiri and Textor before an independent commission to get them to give evidence verbally

We all know how poorly Moshiri is giving evidence as well from the PSR case

How can verbally agreeing something be a breach? Have you ever done any negotiation on deals? How is anyone going to police a verbal agreement?

And look, you didn't answer previously, does Textor own the voting shares that the PL rules outline as being the shares that create a significant interest? Like does he have 45% control over decisions taken at Crystal Palace? Or are there different classes of shares.

Verbal agreements are legally recognised in the UK

 

[bluestevon]

How can verbally agreeing something be a breach? Have you ever done any negotiation on deals? How is anyone going to police a verbal agreement?

And look, you didn't answer previously, does Textor own the voting shares that the PL rules outline as being the shares that create a significant interest? Like does he have 45% control over decisions taken at Crystal Palace? Or are there different classes of shares.

He does have a significant interest mate, he has a vote on the board at palace

 

[Tommy.]

Might be the most boring thread on the whole site

It's beyond tedious.

That last little bit of me which still likes Everton is obviously very interested in this thread, given the potential impact on the club.
However, Damo and Dave just seem to perpetually pass their little incel Olympic torch to each other and proceed to trash any high value threads unabated.

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

But they can look at all the documents they want. A verbal agreement, by it's very nature, means it's not documented, does it not?

He's going to ask for your evidence of that.

 

[catcherintherye]

The rules allow them to inspect documents by appointment. They could open a formal investigation if they think the rules are being breached. They could do it instigated by a complaint from other clubs in the league. That has already happened over PSR towards Everton, as well.

Have they got the time, resources or energy to do this?

Is there a conflict of interest in them pursuing this? Would you say, as a fan it's the best use of their time?

I would posit it's an overwhelming waste of time and money, for an organisation already shown to be bereft of integrity and decency.

 

[catcherintherye]

The rules allow them to inspect documents by appointment. They could open a formal investigation if they think the rules are being breached. They could do it instigated by a complaint from other clubs in the league. That has already happened over PSR towards Everton, as well.

What documents are there for a verbal agreement then?

 

[catcherintherye]

He does have a significant interest mate, he has a vote on the board at palace

There you go. I'm glad somebody could answer, rather than the other fella who seemed to answer any question other than the one asked