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.

 

New Everton Stadium

Damo W said:
Fair point I didn't read detail of charges, but the fact still is that we don't owe any other loans as stated in accounts you may find that the facility being offered by the original charge is still on offer hence the reason why it has not been satisfied and is a quick source of liquidity that may be needed for what ever purpose. also a charge can be satisfied without it being registered at companies house.

The main point is other loans were satisfied by Moshiri's money hence the statement of post balance sheet events in accounts that's stated he put in £80m and other loans of £54m were repaid including what was due to JG and RMF if £22.5m was owed to RMF I can only calculate that £12.5m was owed to JG given £35m of other loans was due at the FY16 year end over and above the £19m of loan notes that were issued a number of years ago.
Click to expand...
Not ITK, but this is the series of events that follows logic.
FM puts 80 mil in, pays off long term debt, original JG loan of 35 mil and RM payoffs/RK pay-ons - the bulk of the 80 is gone.
In Aug, the new RMF charge put in place to secure the lending stream (which it would appear is cheaper than banks) covering 16/17 stabiliser payment and 17/18 basic payment.
Not sure when the announcement of putting a stop to this kind of funding was, but at some point EFC must have believed it could get round it - RMF is "supervised by proxy", the source of funds is the IoM which has trade and capital flow agreements in place with the UK dating back to when the UK joined the EU etc.
Anyway, up to the date of signing of the accounts, no further amounts are drawn down against RMF, so the PBSE note was correct in that no money was owed in respect of the loans at 31.05.16 at that date. It doesn't have to mention that it may be thinking of drawing down further funds from the arrangement in the accounts (the projected 22.5m).
GM in Jan, in amongst the projections for profit etc, there is one for borrowings as I stated earlier. If this has come to pass, then it makes perfect sense to have the JG charge in place as this is against the basic award for 2016/17, last bit of which is paid out May (I think).
This bit is purely guesswork.
In order to give security in case the basic award is not enough to cover it, you leave the RMF charge in place and remove one element be it the basic award 17/18 or the stabiliser payment 16/17 thus part satisfying the RMF charge.
If you vault me, I'm pretty sure that at some point I mentioned that Jan signings could well be at least partially funded by RMF.
Think the above makes sense, but feel free to rip it to shreds.

* EDIT gut feeling is the 17/18 basic is the bit got rid of so it can be used for a similar deal with banks, but I don@t "know" anything.
 
The_Rat said:
Seen Joe Anderson in that new chinese 'All You Can Eat Buffet' on Smithdown Road earlier.

Was itching to ask about Thursday, but he didn't look well. So swerved it.
Click to expand...

You don't think the RS have dropped some nerve agent in his fried rice to stop the announcement on Thursday?
 
Could somebody tweet joe and ask him what time Thursday we can expect some news. Want to make sure the room is full of fuming kopites when I switch the radio on!
 

MorgsGoat said:
C1WOpQZXgAIlXS0.jpg:large
Click to expand...

hibbo'sclass said:
So RMF would appear to being drawn down to the extent of 22.5 mil by May, if not already.
Would also point out that this borrowing stream can continue as it is secured on 17/18 payments.
Not too surprised, but disappointed.
Click to expand...
@Damo W
I also posted on the same date (4th Jan I think)It is also clear that no share issue will be undertaken if the 80mil is effectively a down-payment.
 

The fact Anderson says "my body is a temple but I have another temple to attend" or similiar suggest he's either going to be at GP or BMD.

if we don't hear anything then obviously it's just a meeting he's referring too... but surely he's had plenty of those over the past 12 months since Moshiri came on board so why tweet about it?

I'm convinced it's news we have purchased the land for BMD, just hope we get some actually stadium plans/capacity size to truly make the kopites fume.
 
hibbo'sclass said:
Not ITK, but this is the series of events that follows logic.
FM puts 80 mil in, pays off long term debt, original JG loan of 35 mil and RM payoffs/RK pay-ons - the bulk of the 80 is gone.
In Aug, the new RMF charge put in place to secure the lending stream (which it would appear is cheaper than banks) covering 16/17 stabiliser payment and 17/18 basic payment.
Not sure when the announcement of putting a stop to this kind of funding was, but at some point EFC must have believed it could get round it - RMF is "supervised by proxy", the source of funds is the IoM which has trade and capital flow agreements in place with the UK dating back to when the UK joined the EU etc.
Anyway, up to the date of signing of the accounts, no further amounts are drawn down against RMF, so the PBSE note was correct in that no money was owed in respect of the loans at 31.05.16 at that date. It doesn't have to mention that it may be thinking of drawing down further funds from the arrangement in the accounts (the projected 22.5m).
GM in Jan, in amongst the projections for profit etc, there is one for borrowings as I stated earlier. If this has come to pass, then it makes perfect sense to have the JG charge in place as this is against the basic award for 2016/17, last bit of which is paid out May (I think).
This bit is purely guesswork.
In order to give security in case the basic award is not enough to cover it, you leave the RMF charge in place and remove one element be it the basic award 17/18 or the stabiliser payment 16/17 thus part satisfying the RMF charge.
If you vault me, I'm pretty sure that at some point I mentioned that Jan signings could well be at least partially funded by RMF.
Think the above makes sense, but feel free to rip it to shreds.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree with your logic and won't rip anyone to shreds on here and least of all yourself, the main point You make is that PBSE notes in FS's are open up until the point you sign off accounts therefore if a material event occurred on the day before or even the day of signature of accounts discloser is needed so perfectly logical.
 
DerbyshireAndHarper said:


-60000 seater stadium at Bramley Moore Dock.
-4 stands, all enclosed, rectangular shape, brick exterior based on the dock warehouses.
-Stadium design will win awards and cause amazing levels of red jealousy.
-Surrounding area will be redeveloped in very similar fashion to the planned Roma development, featuring retail and leisure.
-Bramley Moore Railway Station is a certainty to be built, inserted on the Northern Line between Sandhills and Moorfields.
-Goodison Park site will not be sold to a supermarket or anything like that and will instead be turned into part residential, part Everton In the Community free school, part local community leisure facilities.
-L4 area future secured with a meaningful lasting legacy.

Thursday's announcement will probably be the BMD site purchase by the club and not much else, although an initial new stadium design teaser may be released too.
Click to expand...


I think that would tick most supporters boxes. Maybe too optimistic to have that lot served up in the next couple of months let alone Thursday but it would be a real boost to the glass half full brigade (I include myself in that) if it was announced we had bought the land or HOTA and Peel and the club were working together to deliver a waterfront stadium complex within x amount of years. Few initial designs wouldn't go amis but I'm not getting my hopes up..... Well I am....who cares.
 
hibbo'sclass said:
Seperate charges against specific income, read the charge document and the definitions of "receivables" and "stabiliser payment" on both documents.
I am merely stating what was on show at the GM, that projected indebtedness at the year end which were shown as BHHL 80m, RMF 22.5m.
If that's the case, then there is a reason to partially satisfy RMF charge and leave JG in place as security from the final basic payment.

Just saying, can't roll them into one , you'd have to do a new charge.


Edit* If we don't owe/will owe money why are both charges there?
Click to expand...

Opening up lines of credit? I thought that's what the summer charge did, but it wasn't used on any transfers.
 

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top