Latest Takeover Rumour. The Moores / Noell one

[Librarian]

We all know it was Harry Redknapp's dog who was guilty of all of the dodgy dealings, and not Harry himself. I mean, it's not as if it's completely weird to have a bank account set up in your dog's name or anything.

And why shouldn't the former president of Thailand embezzle national funds into a premier league club, what of it if he makes himself a billionaire on a politicians salary along the way, once he passes the fit and proper person's test like

 

[SerenityNigh]

*rubs eyes

Anything interesting happening in this thread, or should I continue to fume about the weekend's results?

 

[Woolly Blue]

*rubs eyes

Anything interesting happening in this thread, or should I continue to fume about the weekend's results?

Fuming about the result is probably the best option. If anything major changes on the takeover then we'll probably sticky the thread.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

The corporate governance of football is poor generally I accept that readily. Specifically there are aspects of Everton where corporate governance issues arise, some which although in the public domain have not been picked up even by the board's detractors.

Specifically on the points you raise. The ownership of Everton Football Club is clear unless individuals and auditors are committing serious offences under the Companies Act and possibly the Fraud Act too. I don't accept that such offences have occurred.

The accounts meet international accounting standards and whilst we all would like more information the truth of the matter is even as shareholders we (if you are) are not entitled to any further disclosures.

Under both money laundering regulations and the Premier League regulations the ownership of the BVI companies must be, and is known by the Premier League.

Finally Philip Green and anyone else would be aware of the impact and potential consequences of the type of involvement alleged by some - he would certainly be considered as a "shadow director" should such allegations be true.

With regards to the press had their been any substance to the various allegations over the year, someone would have ran the story, there can be no doubt of that.

This ^ and a packet of Swizzles

Some of the guff spoken about the supposed goings on in regards to Evertons finances has always got on my wick. As it intimated criminal wrong doing and was always without factual foundation.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Finally Philip Green and anyone else would be aware of the impact and potential consequences of the type of involvement alleged by some - he would certainly be considered as a "shadow director" should such allegations be true.

With regards to the press had their been any substance to the various allegations over the year, someone would have ran the story, there can be no doubt of that.

No concerns then about Philip:
1) negotiating the Rooney transfer
2) funding the initial purchase of Gregg's shares
3) summoning Wyness to his yacht to be fired

What I question is the lack of stories linking these sort of items, before any need to advance any specific allegations. Your friend and mine has deep pockets but there's no press scrutiny at play.

 

[The Esk]

No concerns then about Philip:
1) negotiating the Rooney transfer
2) funding the initial purchase of Gregg's shares
3) summoning Wyness to his yacht to be fired

What I question is the lack of stories linking these sort of items, before any need to advance any specific allegations. Your friend and mine has deep pockets but there's no press scrutiny at play.

(i) whilst aware of the allegation I have never seen proof of this and to my knowledge no one has ever produced any proof. The allegation was denied by Green in the Telegraph.
(ii)That's a new one on me, I don't recall that allegation - is this leafpoint or something else?
(iii)It was Robert Earl who summonsed Wyness to Green's yacht. I believe Green may have been present also.

We'll probably never agree. All I can say is that without proof we only have unsubstantiated rumour and getting back on topic none of these issues are likely to effect the acquisition of Everton or a majority shareholding.

 

[matty1878]

Every Everton thread becomes a million pages of utter tripe

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Every Everton thread becomes a million pages of utter tripe

We need more posts of that kind of quality to get it back on track mate

 

[Goat]

Every Everton thread becomes a million pages of utter tripe

Cos Kim Dong Bill doesnt decree the fanbase worthy of information.

 

[PhilM]

All I can say is that without proof we only have unsubstantiated rumour and getting back on topic none of these issues are likely to effect the acquisition of Everton or a majority shareholding.

I pointed this out something similar not to long ago regarding Green's apparent part ownership of the club.

Has there ever been even the smallest amount of evidence to justify this often proposed claim? Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen any.

Over time a claim shrouded in conjuncture and speculation can become true if people do not challenge it or simply accept it as true.

 

[Chang Elephant]

getting back on topic none of these issues are likely to effect the acquisition of Everton or a majority shareholding.

Being mired with dubious ownership might create logistical problems for what would otherwise be a normal transaction e.g. who has end say in agreeing the sale, who takes what of the proceeds, how historic financial dealings remain obscured. Taking the Leeds example again, once the club has "problematic" ownership, those owners might be more likely to sell to similar prospective buyers they're already acquainted with in their murky circles....Bates to Corleone etc. There's got to be some reason this club can't be sold (ignoring the rip off price being asked).

 

[Chang Elephant]

Has there ever been even the smallest amount of evidence to justify this often proposed claim?

What proposed claim ?

 

[bullensboy]

I pointed this out something similar not to long ago regarding Green's apparent part ownership of the club.

Has there ever been even the smallest amount of evidence to justify this often proposed claim? Maybe I'm wrong, but I've never seen any.

Over time a claim shrouded in conjuncture and speculation can become true if people do not challenge it or simply accept it as true.

I can only find this. At least Green admits Kenwright wanted him to be part. The link with Earl is there to see..

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-1603795/Green-at-heart-of-Everton-battle.html

 

[The Esk]

Being mired with dubious ownership might create logistical problems for what would otherwise be a normal transaction e.g. who has end say in agreeing the sale, who takes what of the proceeds, how historic financial dealings remain obscured. Taking the Leeds example again, once the club has "problematic" ownership, those owners might be more likely to sell to similar prospective buyers they're already acquainted with in their murky circles....Bates to Corleone etc. There's got to be some reason this club can't be sold (ignoring the rip off price being asked).

Of course, any bona fide buyer of the shares will want to establish proper title that is unencumbered, but that's part of the due diligence process.

 

[PhilM]

What proposed claim ?

Quite a few people claim that Green is in some way a secret owner of shares in the club, mainly some of Kenwright's and all of Earle's.