The Friedkin Group - Dan & Ryan Friedkin

[Joey66]

Well technically the fault lies with Putin for invading Ukraine, Boris Johnson for sanctioning USM leaving us skint & MSP for messing Moshiri around leaving him with no other choice but to go cap in hand to the only other interested party at the time, which was 777.

Moshiri has put in £800m, built us a world class ground, yet you have a minority of gammons who abuse him online, make fun of his Iranian accent, make fun of his looks etc.

Would you do those same people any favours ?

Stop posting wham - other clubs are not blaming Putin - Our main background benefactor bit the dust - on paper Moshiri was running our club with BK - heard of contingencies plans? - No those two just went out making bogus loans - BK a Cheshire building firm that never existed - & we got done on a points' deduction - have you got a short memory?

 

[MikeH72]

Stop posting wham - other clubs are not blaming Putin - Our main background benefactor bit the dust - on paper Moshiri was running our club with BK - heard of contingencies plans? - No those two just went out making bogus loans - BK a Cheshire building firm that never existed - & we got done on a points' deduction - have you got a short memory?

Well said Joey.

We must continue to fight off misinformation and enemies of this football club.

 

[Damo_1878]

I mean you’ve put an “unsure” face on @Blue_Berry post, which suggests you actually ARE disputing that a human being had to be present to sign documents in order to take out the loans.

You appear insane to me.

You're basically saying, the law is "insane". Ok.

 

[Dublin blue 75]

Agreed mate their overall relationship with the club needs to be looked at. They seem content to sit on their loan, secured against the clubs assets and are our most senior lenders and coining in 10.25% in interest annually.

Fair enough, you say, we agreed the loan, however they also scuppered the MSP deal, which left the club open to 777 and this current legal mess we are in - also benefiting from that process financially.

Its in their financial interest that we remain a basket case - so what is there agenda here and how should we judge some of the above actions.

RMF have no incentive to budge. We are printing 10% cash tax free to them annually, why would they.

 

[Blue_Berry]

I'm not engaged in a battle of wills

The club has legal personality. It can obtain loans via contracts. That can be arranged by officers of the company: Directors

How they should act and the legal ability to act on behalf of the company is all governed by The Companies Act 2006.

Legally and pedantically true, but the Companies Act 2006 doesn't instruct or make decisions for the Directors as to who they should take loans from on behalf of the company, or what loan terms they decide to sign up to.

So as we were, the decisions are made by free-thinking, warm-blooded officers on behalf of the company.

Don't make.me have to come back again to defend this statement on some ridiculous point of legally-confounded etymological logic.

 

[ForeverBlue92]

Stop posting wham - other clubs are not blaming Putin - Our main background benefactor bit the dust - on paper Moshiri was running our club with BK - heard of contingencies plans? - No those two just went out making bogus loans - BK a Cheshire building firm that never existed - & we got done on a points' deduction - have you got a short memory?

Why would they ? 19 other clubs didnt lose a future £200m naming rights deal, countless current sponsorship deals and their owners access to funds like we did.

The same "clever" fans who thought it was funny to grift and make fun of Moshiri are now crying on the internet that he doesn't put anymore of his money into the club.

A valuable life lesson - dont bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[MikeH72]

Legally and pedantically true, but the Companies Act 2006 doesn't instruct or make decisions for the Directors as to who they should take loans from on behalf of the company, or what loan terms they decide to sign up to.

So as we were, the decisions are made by free-thinking, warm-blooded officers on behalf of the company.

Don't make.me have to come back again to defend this statement on some ridiculous point of legally-confounded etymological logic.

LOL best of luck with that one.

 

[Damo_1878]

Legally and pedantically true, but the Companies Act 2006 doesn't instruct or make decisions for the Directors as to who they should take loans from on behalf of the company, or what loan terms they decide to sign up to.

So as we were, the decisions are made by free-thinking, warm-blooded officers on behalf of the company.

Don't make.me have to come back again to defend this statement on some ridiculous point of legally-confounded etymological logic.

That is covered under the Section 174 of The Companies Act 2006 in relation to duties of Directors

174Duty to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence​

(1)A director of a company must exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence.

(2)This means the care, skill and diligence that would be exercised by a reasonably diligent person with—

(a)the general knowledge, skill and experience that may reasonably be expected of a person carrying out the functions carried out by the director in relation to the company, and

(b)the general knowledge, skill and experience that the director has.

There is also a duty to exercise independent judgement, by the directors.

173 Duty to exercise independent judgment​

(1)A director of a company must exercise independent judgment.

(2)This duty is not infringed by his acting—

(a)in accordance with an agreement duly entered into by the company that restricts the future exercise of discretion by its directors, or

(b)in a way authorised by the company's constitution.

The Companies Act does literally tell them how to act.

 

[MikeH72]

That is covered under the Section 174 of The Companies Act 2006 in relation to duties of Directors



There is also a duty to exercise independent judgement, by the directors.



The Companies Act does literally tell them how to act.

So what you’re saying is, that Farhad Moshiri has actually landed these loans on Mr Everton Football Club the person?

 

[Blue_Berry]

That is covered under the Section 174 of The Companies Act 2006 in relation to duties of Directors



There is also a duty to exercise independent judgement, by the directors.



The Companies Act does literally tell them how to act.

So if this is, in your view, the real world, how come all Companies don't make exactly the same decisions as each other?

Which parallel universe are you operating in ffs?

 

[Damo_1878]

So what you’re saying is, that Farhad Moshiri has actually landed these loans on Everton Football Club the person?

The legal person, yes.

Yes, Farhad Moshiri is responsible for that too. Along with Bill Kenwright (whilst he was Chairman)

 

[Joey66]

Why would they ? 19 other clubs didnt lose a future £200m naming rights deal, countless current sponsorship deals and their owners access to funds like we did.

The same "clever" fans who thought it was funny to grift and make fun of Moshiri are now crying on the internet that he doesn't put anymore of his money into the club.

A valuable life lesson - dont bite the hand that feeds you.

It was not Moshiris money - it was his backer who was close to Putin - not a firm footing to run a football club .... MSM were going to profit from the steel that built our new stadia ...

 

[kenada_blue]

He may well have done, had certain fans not abused him.

Either way, thats likely not going to happen and I don't blame him. None of us would take on a £200m debt if they didn't have to.

Nah.

Pay the £200mill into and escrow that gets repaid when the court case clears who the debt belongs to as a deal to sell the club. Gets repaid once the legality is settled.

 

[MikeH72]

It was not Moshiris money - it was his backer who was close to Putin - not a firm footing to run a football club ....

Also nobody is asking him to put that money “into the club”, more simply asking him to pay back the creditors that he owes money to rather than hoping new owners do it for him.

 

[kenada_blue]

It was not Moshiris money - it was his backer who was close to Putin - not a firm footing to run a football club ....

He's gonna have to fund the club in a couple or so months though. Or find it.