The Friedkin Group reaches agreement to buy Everton

[Damo_1878]

Well it's not in the Athletic article so you should maybe delete that as it's heavily misleading as you imply it is. It's also potentially defamatory as it states certain "facts" which have not at all been proven- hence why I didn't believe the Athletic would ever publish it.

If you haven't read the article maybe don't post quotes from effing Reddit.

I can't delete it. Also I put quotes around it so it's clearly not me saying it. As I'm quoting someone

Also don't tell me what I can or can't post. It's a forum for discussion.

 

[Marius57]

I can't delete it. Also I put quotes around it so it's clearly not me saying it. As I'm quoting someone

Also don't tell me what I can or can't post. It's a forum for discussion.

You do have “substantial” history for it…..

 

[Damo_1878]

You do have history for it

What quoting someone?

 

[Tony’s Carp]

I can't delete it. Also I put quotes around it so it's clearly not me saying it. As I'm quoting someone

Also don't tell me what I can or can't post. It's a forum for discussion.

Yes and the words prior to your quote are "discussed by The Athletic:" Heavily implying the quote is from The Athletic which it is not.

I'm asking you not to post things which are false and misleading, and potentially defamatory. I'm sure @GrandOldTeam would ask the same. There are rules to what you can or can't post.

 

[Marius57]

What quoting someone?

False quoting with the use of speech marks.

 

[Damo_1878]

Yes and the words prior to your quote are "discussed by The Athletic:" Heavily implying the quote is from The Athletic which it is not.

I'm asking you not to post things which are false and misleading, and potentially defamatory. I'm sure @GrandOldTeam would ask the same. There are rules to what you can or can't post.

Quoting someone which was clearly marked with " " and in italics.

The quotes are citing The Athletic including the POCA reference

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Quoting someone which was clearly marked with " " and in italics.

The quotes are citing The Athletic including the POCA reference

I am aware that you are quoting someone but you are not quoting the Athletic, as you imply you are. You are quoting a random off Reddit who has posted things that are not factually correct.

 

[Damo_1878]

I am aware that you are quoting someone but you are not quoting the Athletic, as you imply you are. You are quoting a random off Reddit who has posted things that are not factually correct.

They used the word "likelihood" of fraud charges being made to stick

That is fair commentary by them

The only thing in error in the paragraph is "criminal court"

So you're wrong with your accusations of "defamatory" because that is the only inaccurate part.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

They used the word "likelihood" of fraud charges being made to stick

That is fair commentary by them

The only thing in error in the paragraph is "criminal court"

So you're wrong with your accusations of "defamatory" because that is the only inaccurate part.

The issue is with the sentence "777 secured the loans against assets it did not own, sometimes multiple times."

This has not been proven and The Athletic would never publish it without an "it is alleged". Because to state it as a fact runs a risk of defamation.

 

[Damo_1878]

The issue is with the sentence "777 secured the loans against assets it did not own, sometimes multiple times."

This has not been proven and The Athletic would never publish it without an "it is alleged". Because to state it as a fact runs a risk of defamation.

No the sentence is correct. There are "competing claims". That's why there are court cases underway.

I'm afraid you've gone compete overboard over some phrasing you judge is inaccurate but is actually accurate, barring one sentence

Next time I'll cite the primary source. That will thus shut you down.

Personally. Barring the "criminal court" sentence I agree with the paragraph commentary.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

No the sentence is correct. There are "competing claims". That's why there are court cases underway.

I'm afraid you've gone compete overboard over some phrasing you judge is inaccurate but is actually accurate, barring one sentence

Next time I'll cite the primary source. That will thus shut you down.

Personally. Barring the "criminal court" sentence I agree with the paragraph commentary.

Thanks, yes if you could avoid posting misleading and factually inaccurate quotes and implying they are from a credible source like The Athletic when in fact they are from a random on Reddit I think that would be beneficial to all of us.

 

[Toffeeslam]

I assume it's because 777 have allegedly behaved fraudulently in obtaining money which was then given/loaned to us?

Okay so the club pays back the loan to a court then it should extract the club from this right ?

The club would not have know that the funds were fraudulently obtained if proven….so why hold the club hostage ?

 

[Zatara]

My first draft of a response was huge and confusing, so I’m going to ignore a lot of complicated twists and turns and hypotheticals and use an over simple analogy:

If “Sam” steals money from “Joe” and loans it to you, “Sam” has not successfully laundered that money simply because there is a contract with you. “Joe” has plenty of recourse to recover that money. Especially if “Joe” wants to also accuse you of wrongdoing.

Even if “Joe” is wrong, enjoy your 18-36 month litigation and attorney’s fees.

Well, with this deal the club will have needed to see the source of funds. It's never just as simple as 777 lending to Everton -- in my experience there is always documentation to show the source of funds (ultimate beneficiary / beneficiaries / shareholders blah blah behind the company).

Its not like a simple "sam steals, sam lends to Everton". Theres a paper trail. Its like when you have a BVI company you face which is owned by Cayman entity and then behind that a Belize firm. The directors of each arent the owners and to find the source you need the name and documents of each and also behind the Belize entity (where it is a serious crime to reveal the true ownership).

I dont see how this would not be the case with this situation.

Also, as per my question we arent simply sending back to Sam or Joe. We could send to the courts, we could do all sorts of things to mitigate any issue as the innocent party.

Is that 777 situation not a civil case rather than a criminal one?

 

[Joey66]

Just read the reason the deal fell through was over the 200m of the up & coming litigation the group asked Moshiri to pay the indemnity insurance before they proceeded for the protected deal from any after litigation fallout - The Mosh refused to pay it FGS how greedy can this guy be ?

 

[TyphooToffee]

Correct. Also that what is alleged if proven, under POCA could also be considered money-laundering offences in the UK, in addition.

What was missing and the link in the above tweets discussed by The Athletic:

"The £200M the club owes 777 was itself lent by parties who have competing claims. 777 secured the loans against assets it did not own, sometimes multiple times. Thus they are in criminal court.

Any buyer of EFC faces a legal nightmare to determine who actually holds their IOUs. And who knows how many lawsuits if they pay back the “wrong” party.

Given the likelihood of fraud charges against 777 being made to stick, “any self-respecting corporate lawyer would have to warn a client looking at Everton that there may be a potential Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) issue down the line.”

Just lock up Moshiri, take his shares and other investments off him and let him stew in his own juice in the hope that he'll learn from it. I doubt he will though.