The Friedkin Group - Dan & Ryan Friedkin

[jamieni]

But Everton would never really be part of that legal battle, other than being referred to as a debtor, which everyone already knows about anyway.

The legal battle will only determine who is owed the money, it makes no difference to our liability. We borrowed money, and we will either have to pay it all back, or some of it back. The legal battle doesn’t change this.

Yeah although the uncertainty over the 777 loan is the reason cited for TFGs withdrawal.

Taking account of the various views on here I’d guess that the deal was just too expensive for TFG and either they’ll come back with a lower offer at some point or somebody else will be prepared to take the risk, assuming they agree to Moshiri’s asking price.

 

[pfim]

But Everton would never really be part of that legal battle, other than being referred to as a debtor, which everyone already knows about anyway.

The legal battle will only determine who is owed the money, it makes no difference to our liability. We borrowed money, and we will either have to pay it all back, or some of it back. The legal battle doesn’t change this.

Again, not sure I agree with that. If we pay Acap and it turns out we owe Leadenhall, that's our problem...it's why there's an injunction against Acap collecting and why they can't negotiate a restructuring.

 

[Dymak]

Evertons name will be dragged into this.

It already has been dragged into it. We are a debtor to an extremely dodgy organisation. We have also been de facto run by a Russian Oligarch for years. I think the time to worry about reputational damage has been and gone.

 

[jamieni]

Again, not sure I agree with that. If we pay Acap and it turns out we owe Leadenhall, that's our problem...it's why there's an injunction against Acap collecting and why they can't negotiate a restructuring.

Pure Everton. Pay the wrong entity £200 million and owe somebody else £200 million. It will happen

 

[MikeH72]

Let’s never forget that Moshiri played a blinder with that 777 loan

 

[Dymak]

Again, not sure I agree with that. If we pay Acap and it turns out we owe Leadenhall, that's our problem...it's why there's an injunction against Acap collecting and why they can't negotiate a restructuring.

I was unaware of the reported injunction, which I accept would prevent anyone from paying the debt off. The fact that an injunction is required kind of proves my original point tho. Leadenhall require an injunction because they simply aren’t mentioned in 777’s loan to Everton.

I don’t think Everton are either perpetrator or victim when people make reference to 777’s alleged criminal activity. But if we had to be one or the other, I’d say we are a victim, as 777’s alleged criminal activity is supposedly having an adverse impact on our ability to sell the club to new owners.

 

[Dymak]

Pure Everton. Pay the wrong entity £200 million and owe somebody else £200 million. It will happen

It really won’t happen tho mate. People are now saying that it can’t happen because of a legal injunction.

 

[pfim]

I was unaware of the reported injunction, which I accept would prevent anyone from paying the debt off. The fact that an injunction is required kind of proves my original point tho. Leadenhall require an injunction because they simply aren’t mentioned in 777’s loan to Everton.

I don’t think Everton are either perpetrator or victim when people make reference to 777’s alleged criminal activity. But if we had to be one or the other, I’d say we are a victim, as 777’s alleged criminal activity is supposedly having an adverse impact on our ability to sell the club to new owners.

I doubt ACap's name is in that document either, it's not relevant to the conversation.

I thought I read about the injunction, frankly I'm relying on others with that.

 

[jamieni]

It really won’t happen tho mate. People are now saying that it can’t happen because of a legal injunction.

Well at least that’s one less thing to worry about!

 

[pfim]

I was unaware of the reported injunction, which I accept would prevent anyone from paying the debt off. The fact that an injunction is required kind of proves my original point tho. Leadenhall require an injunction because they simply aren’t mentioned in 777’s loan to Everton.

I don’t think Everton are either perpetrator or victim when people make reference to 777’s alleged criminal activity. But if we had to be one or the other, I’d say we are a victim, as 777’s alleged criminal activity is supposedly having an adverse impact on our ability to sell the club to new owners.

Looks like July 8th.

Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP et al v. Wander et al (1:24-cv-03453), New York Southern District Court

Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP et al v. Wander et al (1:24-cv-03453), New York Southern District Court, Filed: 05/03/2024

www.pacermonitor.com

 

[Dymak]

I doubt ACap's name is in that document either, it's not relevant to the conversation.

I thought I read about the injunction, frankly I'm relying on others with that.

But as you said earlier, it probably does make reference to 777’s ‘successors’.

If what’s being reported is true, Leadenhall require an injunction because they are not 777’s successors at this time.

I stand by my assertion that Everton would have been able to pay A-CAP if no such injunction was in place, and that Leadenhall would have had no retroactive recourse to Everton’s money in such a scenario. That’s why they needed the injunction, it’s the purpose of the injunction.

 

[Baines49Lee]

But as you said earlier, it probably does make reference to 777’s ‘successors’.

If what’s being reported is true, Leadenhall require an injunction because they are not 777’s successors at this time.

I stand by my assertion that Everton would have been able to pay A-CAP if no such injunction was in place, and that Leadenhall would have had no retroactive recourse to Everton’s money in such a scenario. That’s why they needed the injunction, it’s the purpose of the injunction.

Its all a bit legal but surely the injunction clause quoted does not prevent any debt being paid to 777/A-Cap based on the text this would be stated as normal business.

'The Court enters a preliminary injunction that, other than in the normal and ordinary course of business: (A) prohibits selling, transferring, converting, pledging, or encumbering the assets pledged as collateral by the Borrowers to Leadenhall under the Loan and Security Agreement dated May 7, 2021'

Surely payment by a debtor would be normal course of business, they can't prevent a debtor paying off a loan as early as this unfailry disadvantages the debtor with interest payments and such forth. There will be claused in the loan that specifically state this ability regardless of what a US court does they can only stop 777 using the received funds.

 

[Neiler]

I understand. But Leadenhall aren’t mentioned in Everton’s loan from 777, and they are not 777’s successors at this time. Quite frankly, they have sod all to do with Everton.

People are claiming that Leadenhall would have a right to claim money back from Everton (even if Everton had already settled with 777’s successors) in the event that they won some long-winded legal action that was settled in the future.

I don’t believe this to be true, as Everton would have fulfilled their end of their contract (which doesn’t include Leadenhall).

Leadenhall could not retrospectively seek money via a contract that has already been fulfilled, and has never involved Leadenhall. If Leadenhall did want to claim such money, they’d have to chase 777’s real life successors. They can’t chase a historic debtor that has already completed the terms of a historic loan agreement.

The court injunction prevents either Leadenhall or ACAP to dispose of the asset mate i.e. our debt.

 

[Charles Hawtrey]

My fav pic of the Mosh included....​

​

What now for Everton? Future still unclear after more takeover drama​

Andy Hunter
U-turn does not mean instant turmoil, but sale is complex and existing loans mean the club is haemorrhaging cash

Tue 23 Jul 2024 07.04 EDT
Share


There was shock and deflation inside Everton’s HQ at the Liver Buildings on Friday when it was confirmed the Friedkin Group would not be buying the club after all. Stability, direction and owners with a sound reputation in the football industry and beyond – everything Everton are crying out for – appeared within reach. Alas, no, the consequences of Farhad Moshiri’s calamitous reign must be felt for some time yet.
Everton insist it is business as usual after the collapse of the American company’s proposed takeover. The club can, in fairness, support that claim. The construction of their stunning new stadium at Bramley Moore dock is not far off completion, with the remaining costs covered by Friedkin’s initial loan of £200m. There is no pressure on the club to repay that sum in the short term. The threat of administration has lifted and Everton’s day-to-day finances will benefit soon from the next instalment of broadcasting revenues.
















Manchester United have been told it will take an eye-watering sum to test Everton’s resolve that Jarrad Branthwaite is not for sale and Amadou Onana has joined Aston Villa for £50m. The director of football, Kevin Thelwell, continues to pursue several transfer targets and had been working on the basis that a takeover by Friedkin, or any other party, may not have gone through in time to transform this summer’s tightly constrained strategy anyway. Branthwaite is expected to be offered an improved contract to extend his stay.
But while Everton have not been plunged into instant turmoil by Friedkin’s withdrawal, their long-term future is again shrouded in uncertainty. The main reason for Friedkin’s decision not to proceed with a deal to purchase the 94% stake held by Moshiri’s Blue Heaven Holdings, after four weeks of due diligence into Everton’s finances, indicates there is no straightforward route into the light.

The owners of Roma, headed by the Texan billionaire Dan Friedkin, were ultimately put off buying Everton because of factors connected to the £200m loaned to the club by 777 Partners during its failed eight-month takeover attempt. The controversial Miami-based investment firm was Moshiri’s dreadful choice to buy Everton before its efforts inevitably collapsed in June. 777 Partners is in financial turmoil and facing a $600m (£464m) lawsuit in a New York district court brought by Leadenhall Capital Partners. Leadenhall accuses 777 of serious fraud and has obtained an injunction preventing 777’s assets, including its investment in Everton, from being disposed of. Until that civil case is resolved, and any outcome could be subject to an appeal, the repayment or renegotiation of that £200m loan represents an obstacle that Friedkin concluded could not be overcome. It could have, for example, repaid a sum to A-Cap, the US insurer which has security on 777’s assets, only for the case to go in Leadenhall’s favour.

View image in fullscreen
Everton remain under the ownership of Farhad Moshiri after the Friedkin Group pulled out of a deal to buy the club. Photograph: Alex Livesey/Getty Images
There was an encouraging degree of interest in Moshiri’s shareholding when the exclusivity period with 777 expired last month. The Crystal Palace co-owner John Textor, who has yet to sell his 45% stake in the Selhurst Park club, and various consortiums led by the former LA Dodgers general manager Kevin Malone, MSP Sports Capital, the businessman Vatche Manoukian, the private investment fund Vici and the Everton-supporting businessmen Andy Bell and George Downing stepped forward. Several may do so again, but they face the same legal problems with the 777 loan that turned Freidkin away and must be prepared to take a considerable risk on that debt for Everton finally to be rid of Moshiri. Friedkin insists the amount owed to 777 – or A-Cap – was not the issue.

The Friedkin Group “will remain a lender to the club and is proud to have played a key role in enabling the new stadium to be built, which will help ensure a bright future for both Everton and the city of Liverpool”, read the joint-statement that confirmed the collapse of their takeover last week. “Blue Heaven Holdings maintains a positive relationship with The Friedkin Group,” it added. Friedkin’s initial attempt to buy Roma fell through in June 2020, when the world was dealing with the impact of the pandemic, before being revived two months later.
skip past newsletter promotion
Sign up to Football Daily

With £225m owed to Rights and Media Funding on an interest rate understood to be 10.25%, £200m owed to Friedkin and £200m loaned from 777, hundreds of thousands of pounds are going out of Everton each week. Moshiri is facing huge losses on the £450m in shareholder loans he has given to Everton too. The final season in Goodison’s history beckons, Bramley Moore awaits next summer, but between Everton’s past and future there is limbo. The club is back to craving a resolution once again

 

[Dymak]

The court injunction prevents either Leadenhall or ACAP to dispose of the asset mate i.e. our debt.

Exactly. So there is no chance of us having to pay one, and then also having to pay the other. Ultimately, a court will eventually decide who is owed the money, and then subsequently, Everton will be obliged to pay all or some of the money back.

That’s the level of ‘complexity’ we are dealing with. I don’t think it’s overly complex, and I think it’s something our new owner will simply have to contend with. If they aren’t capable of contending with that, then they aren’t capable of taking over Everton.

The reported concerns about proceeds of crime are just BS in my opinion. Everton will have committed no crime in entering into a commercial loan with 777, even if 777’s money was derived from selling crack to school children.