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.

 

The Everton Board Thread 2015/16 [ Not takeover related ]

Is it time for change?

  • I'm happy with the way thing are. Kenwright and the Board should stay.

    Votes: 75 10.2%

  • Kenwright and the board need to go. We need change.

    Votes: 558 76.2%

  • I'm indifferent. Can't decide.

    Votes: 99 13.5%
  • Total voters
    732
Status
Not open for further replies.
hibbo'sclass said:
Just gone through the Everton and True Blue Holdings Accounts from 1999 to 2014. Lot of effort for nothing really

The only thing I was able to ascertain re the TBHL mortgage is what I suspected to start off with, that at no point did any drawdown on the mortgage re shares didn't make it into the accounts so it was a private arrangement.

On a slightly different note which I brought up a while back re the apparent difference in the loan figures in other loans, this originated in 2009 as a 10m bank loan secured on assets and broadcasting rights, increased in 2010 to 17m. This loan was due to be repaid by 31 May 2013 and had an average rate of interest of 4.25% per the notes to the accounts. This would appear to be Investec

In 2011 the loan was again described as a bank loan for 14mil, but the interest rate had gone up to 8.7%

In 2012 the loan was described as other loan, again interest rate up to 8.9%

In 2013 the loan which at this point was 10 mil was again included in other loan (but seperate to VIBRAC) with no interest rate given


In 2014 the loan which at this point was 6 mil was again included in other loan (but seperate to VIBRAC) with no interest rate given

So it would appear that there is indeed something that started off as a bank loan, secured on assets and broadcasting rights, has been extended and judging by the fact that it appears to be un-noted, is owed to heaven knows. But at least I know how it started.
Click to expand...

Owed to heaven knows....

Nice. ;)
 
the esk said:
Not sure this is accurate mate. Mihir Bose in his Telegraph Article claims that Anita Gregg may have been the principle provider of finance. Jimmy Mulville and Willy Russell also invested in True Blue Holdings.
Click to expand...

But there was a mortgage against all the shares in True Blue Holdings, not the personal purchase made by any of the individual parties, why do they need a mortgage if backed by Anita Gregg ?
 
Chang Elephant said:
But there was a mortgage against all the shares in True Blue Holdings, not the personal purchase made by any of the individual parties, why do they need a mortgage if backed by Anita Gregg ?
Click to expand...

Standard procedure to take a charge against all the assets and shares of the company as it was the company (TBH) borrowing the money not Bill directly. Not disimilar to the way the Glazer's originally financed their purchase of Manchester United.

So even though AG put her own money in, the fact that to complete the purchase there were borrowings as others did not have enough cash, the whole equity of TBH is held as security.
 
the esk said:
Standard procedure to take a charge against all the assets and shares of the company as it was the company (TBH) borrowing the money not Bill directly. Not disimilar to the way the Glazer's originally financed their purchase of Manchester United.

So even though AG put her own money in, the fact that to complete the purchase there were borrowings as others did not have enough cash, the whole equity of TBH is held as security.
Click to expand...
Why would an individual as part of TBH, put into TBH if they had enough money but others didn't, putting their own equity at risk by virtue of this charge ? Still wondering about the set up, the motives and the financing of TBH here and if your reference to the Glazers purchase is actually/unfortunately very relevant to this.
 
Chang Elephant said:
Why would an individual as part of TBH, put into TBH if they had enough money but others didn't, putting their own equity at risk by virtue of this charge ? Still wondering about the set up, the motives and the financing of TBH here and if your reference to the Glazers purchase is actually/unfortunately very relevant to this.
Click to expand...

The story goes that TBH arranged the financing and then Bill invited the Gregg's to participate with Anita putting cash in followed by Mulville etc. TBH was only a holding company, so the risk for the Gregg's was whether Everton would succeed or not financially not TBH. The bank would only have called in the security if Everton could not meet their obligations, in which case the equity was worthless anyway.
 

Chang Elephant said:
What obligations would EFC Ltd have to the bank providing the mortgage to TBH Ltd ?
Click to expand...
My understanding is as follows.
EFC Ltd was not party to the mortgage so had no obligations.

TBHL didn't have any borrowings at any point. It had investments at cost + small bank balance - accrual for audit fees = share capital.

The loan, if it were ever drawn down, which seems unlikely given @the esk s post re AG, was done so by the investors to subscribe for Shares in TBHL.

The only link to EFC Ltd is that this was effectively the underlying security to the extent that TBHL owned circa 70% of it.
 
@Chang Elephant
@the esk
Just re-read the mortgage of shares.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bank of Scotland gave an irrevocable letter of credit to TBHL in return for the mortgage. From reading the accounts for TBHL, this entity had no borrowings at any point.

So, it would appear that the credit line was available to TBHL but remained unused.

No evidence, but I wonder if this line of credit had anything to do with the much vaunted "ring fenced" money for Kings Dock. Sadly, I suspect I will never know.
 
Chang Elephant said:
What obligations would EFC Ltd have to the bank providing the mortgage to TBH Ltd ?
Click to expand...

Perhaps not the best choice of words, but given that the owners of TBH were de facto the owners and operators of Everton, there would be a duty to keep Everton solvent. There may have been covenants attached to the credit facility.

@hibbo'sclass privately has made an excellent point in that the credit facility may have been to allow TBH to pick up other minority interests (as is shown in the accounts) given it was an open offer for shares.
 


Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top