US-run SPAC exploring Everton takeover

The Echo goes on to explain that:

SPACs are blank cheque companies that raise funds from investors via IPOs, with the investors having little knowledge of exactly what will be acquired aside from the industry where the SPAC will be seeking to acquire, or usually merge, with an existing private company, taking it public on the stock exchange.

There is a ticking clock from the IPO, however, with SPACs generally having a period of between 18 and 24 months to find a merger partner after raising money, having to return funds, held in trust accounts, to investors if they are unsuccessful. The LAMF SPAC still has time on its side. The LAMF SPAC was set up with the intention to focus on opportunities in media, entertainment and sports, as well as within e-commerce and technology.

Sounds like a purely speculative venture which can only have one purpose – to make money for its investors. A partial stake up to say 45% (ie, non-controlling) might be acceptable if Farhad needs the cash to complete the stadium, but a full-control buyout would sound highly dubious and questionable.

Unless they want to buy my share too for say ٥,500??? — which would value the club at a nice round One Billion Pounds!

Anyone still believe what Moshiri said a few months back "Everton is not for sale"?

Brian,

If he's really looking for additional investors to provide cash now that his sugar-daddy has had the rug pulled away, then it seems he might have been telling the truth?

I don't think any business is never for sale if the right offer comes along, Brian. Everything has its price and, with the new stadium about to deliver, Everton is an inviting investment interest.

I've watched the footage of the announcement of the new stadium. As much as I've advocated a new stadium for decades, and it's going to be iconic, great for the club, great for the city, and great for the northern docks, it upsets me profoundly that we will leave Goodison Park. I'm emotional now thinking about it so goodness knows what I'll be like when the day comes.

Right, soppy Danny aside and back on point, it is no surprise to me that the hawks are circling. The opportunity is there to be realised. On and off the pitch. I'd expect more of it to come.

It really won't matter if Moshiri runs it like a whorehouse rotation if Frank and Thelwell keep the football on track. Moshiri should feel quite obligated to them both for saving his ass.

If I read things correctly, a serious bid would indicate that the interested party sees us as potentially a sound investment, notwithstanding stadium build costs. Should that reassure us that the stadium build will be seen through to completion, if anybody doubts otherwise?

As Michael has mentioned, Moshiri needs to find money from somewhere now that Usmanov has been black-balled. That's speculation of course but I'd wager that it's not far from the truth.

At least part of the club will be sold I feel, maybe all of it.

Brent #7, that's the way I read it too. Soros and Horsman launched the Los Angeles Media Fund in 2014 to finance and produce movies and documentaries. Given the amount of money floating around football these days, it's not surprising that they would expand into sports management and would want to buy a European club as an investment vehicle into the market. I believe they would be acutely reputation-conscious and will only pursue an investment they consider likely to be monumentally successful.

Michael #1, big bucks investors like private equity funds, athletes and celebrities have gone bigtime into SPACs over the past couple of years because of the relative safety of knowing they'll get their money back if the deal doesn't go through. And I would think investors would throw money at this particular SPAC based on the Soros name alone, since George Soros built one of the world's biggest fortunes (and has given most of it to charity).

Here's the most interesting part for us. People launching SPACs choose their takeover/merger targets before they open their doors and start accepting investor cash. The presence of Harris in an advisory role might suggest that this SPAC was formed with the specific intention of investing in Everton. And, to Brent's point, it seems reasonable that the stadium would be key to their interest.

Update: Seeking Alpha has dropped a brief article on LAMF and Everton.

It says LAMF went public last November and raised $253 million at $10/share (today's trading price is $10.12), so that's the amount LAMF has to invest. Enough to buy a big piece of the club, but not swallow it whole.

As I understand it, the date of the IPO (11 November 2021) is when the clock started ticking on the SPAC, so the 2-year window is almost half expended.

Knowing our luck, we'll tell the Soros family to take a hike, and hitch our wagon to the no-marks sniffing around a couple of months ago cos they offered another 𧶀M.

I heard about this months ago, and have been praying ever since, because I'm sure Keith Harris hasn't got much time for William Kenwright, although I might be getting him mixed up with Richard Harris and quite possibly another bid?

Tony, you're always the man with the inside sources. Spill, mate. What did you hear and when?

Tony,

How can you mix up Richard and Keith Harris? One was a legendary actor, the other a man who had his hand stuck up a giant green bird that couldn't fly.

Dr Keith Harris joined the EFC board in 2016, primarily to drive the new stadium build. He left in 2019. No reason was given.

He is an investment banker and financier.

Clive,

Let me add to that Keith Harris was originally engaged by Kenwright to sell the club and subsequently joined the board at the time of Moshiri's acquisition.

After he left, he claimed that Everton was the most dysfunctional board he had ever worked with.

I heard about this American investment company being interested in Everton before last season had finished, Mike, and I think Keith's namesake has just answered the other part with regards to what he thought about Everton's dysfunctional board.

I've never been very good with names, Kieran, but I'm very aware that Everton have stopped being able to fly since the very fly actor got his grubby little hands into our great club.

I believe this is the model of the Swansea takeover where celebs like Mandy Kaling bought into such a fund and they bought out Huw Jenkins.

If they follow the same model, expect Bruce Arenas to be brought in as manager.

Two things:

1) Moshiri gets an offer...any offer, good or bad for us...He can live with, He's gone in a heartbeat.

2) In the manner of transfer speculation; I'll believe it when I see the new guy holding the scarf or shirt at Finch Farm.

As Michael says if it's a non-controlling stake they are after and Moshiri keeps control, while getting investment to balance the books and fund the stadium build, then it could be positive if it means highly skilled people being appointed to the board to drive the brand, stadium, commercial income etc.

However, if it is an investment fund with shareholders looking for returns on investments, that is just money taken from our club, unless they are looking long-term.

We are not Man Utd or Liverpool. We don't have massive commercial partners and mind-boggling sponsorships. There just isn't the profit in EFC at this time.

So, unless they are willing to invest now to see a return once they have helped to make us competitive, both on and off the field, who knows what their long-term plan could be?

Groups like FSG, Boehly & The Glazers are interested in returns and the value of their assets rising. FSG have done a good job at Liverpool because they have planned long-term.

They are in it for the money too, no matter what RS half-wits think, they are building up the club to siphon the money while keeping them competitive. They know if they finish Top 4 and get into the Champions League every year, they get an easy ride through first rounds for big money and take their slice.

But they are taking their slice from a bigger pie they have helped create, which leaves more than enough to keep the club competitive.

If we get investment and our revenues grow substantially from European football, higher Premier League places, more lucrative sponsorships etc, then that's where they will start to claw back their investment.

It can only work with quality people leading the club. Commercial experts, branding experts, sports business experts being on the board.

Which we know we don't have now!

Mike,

Soros who has been characterized as the real world version of 1984's Goldstein in 92. What are the nutters gonna do when he croaks? Oh wait, I guess this is where the nephew comes in as the next pantomime villain.

Personally if the nephew is anything like George, I don't want him near Everton as he'd be far too smart to blow money on a sports team. Ideally, we need investors who are all reckless lotto winners who hand their cash over, willy-nilly. Kind of like Moshiri, but excluding agents and Kenwright from the spending part.

Paul, I'm hoping Orville extricated himself from Keith before the latter passed away. Otherwise it would have made for a grim spectre as the bird sang about flying while being planted.

Soros is an evil globalist currently in the process of ruining the USA.
Back away ASAP 😡

Bob, it's always lovely to hear from the QAnon conspiracy.

And you've got the wrong Soros, but thanks for playing.

Bob @40,

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I have Hannigan ancestors. What does “globalist” mean? Is there anyone beyond the USA who's more of a globalist than the folks behind Coke, Pepsi, McDonalds etc?

Moreover if there is, what's inherently wrong with being a globalist as that implies to me, someone who is trying to ferment global connections that supersede race, religion etc. Is that bad? Would you prefer we all stay within our town, village, family?

David West @33. Your last comments sum it all up.

With or without new owners (preferably with), we need worldwide commercial investments and, as it stands now, this CEO is totally out her depth delivering that. I'm sure she will be embarrassed to even try unless she's as daft, reckless and arrogant as the fella who gave her the job half a billion pounds ago and will surely have to go with her.

C'mon, Yanks — make it happen.

Keith Harris = Bill Kenwright.

Kenwright will eventually find a willing fool to buy out Moshiri as long as he retains control of “the football side” of the business.

Bob, globalist? Say what you really want to say. It used to be “cosmopolitan”. Before that it was the “Jewish Bolshevik/capitalist conspiracy”. Have the balls to say what you really mean.

Colin and Kieran, most people who use the word "globalist" these days know exactly what it's code for. They think using a more sophisticated word than "Jew" will make them seem more respectable (and less bigoted), but in truth the code was broken long ago.

I hope we steer clear of anything to do with anybody named Soros and a connection to the Cayman Islands.

Keith Harris certainly hit the big time after ditching Orvil. No wonder he hates that duck.

As for this latest rumour, I expect there is lots of speculative interest in the club.

It may not be a bad thing. The Moshiri era is a massive disappointment from a footballing perspective. Materially worse than the penniless era that preceded it.

The only concern for me is that Moshiri finally seems to have the right people involved in Thelwell and Lampard. So I wouldn't want that disrupted by new owners. The legacy will be the stadium though, and we will be thankful for that I expect.

C'mon, Mike @46,

Most people???

Isn't it just the New World Order conspiracists and others on the far right who have purloined a term that was (and should still be) quite innocent of such associations? Please don't give such a minority so much oxygen.

Robert, many years ago when I worked on The Fylde I used to occasionally see Keith Harris in his Mercedes. Hard to miss as his registration was ORV1L. Disappointed it wasn't the duck driving.

Thanks for that Robert. Now I've got I wish I could fly and who is your very best friend in my head.

You make a good point.

Finally, Moshiri seems to have smelled the coffee and woken up.

The stadium is on track. A management team is being allowed to manage the football side of things. Positivity and unity throughout the club on and off the pitch in a manner we haven't had in years.

I personally wouldn't want anything disrupted right now, but then I'm not a business person when it comes to football and in particular, Everton.

I guess as always, I'll just have to hope and follow, whatever happens.

Michael #51,

I said "most people who use the word." It is indeed an innocuous academic term, but it has been co-opted. If you see it on a chat board, you know how it is being used.

Keith Harris' Orville puppet was sold at auction along with Rod Hull's emu for 10,000 a piece. Based on that pricing, Keith Harris would be selling our better players for a few quid. In today's market Orville alone would be in the 50 million bracket. Keith Harris consortium out.

Well, if Soros buys Everton, I don't think we'll ever have to worry about the VAR again!

Colin @44. It's up to the fans to make sure, if the new owners are as gullible as Moshiri, it doesn't happen. Not just a few hundred of us marching around Goodison. There should be uproar and then some.

"Everton Beware"

The club should be very wary of this SPAC bid for the club. The Soros family have a very infamous record of financial dealings.

George Soros, the father, tried to bankrupt England by his dealings in the market. The reason for these dealings was due to the fact he did not like the way the government of the day was running the country. I could be wrong but I believe it was in the time of Harold Wilson's government.

To have the Soros family running the club would be like asking Dr Fauci to be your family doctor – a complete rogue.
It should be noted that Dr Fauci has authorized grants to Eco Health Alliance which partners with the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

Realizing that Moshiri has had really bad luck in signing on players and managers, this would be his biggest blunder of all.

Danny @53,

You are probably speaking for a majority of fans there who consider what they see on the pitch on a Saturday afternoon as being the most important.

After all, whoever is the owner, what we are really interested in as fans is if our performance gives satisfaction to us.

We know that money matters and that will always be the case but we want, most of all, to be content with what we see on the pitch.

That doesn't need any dubious American or other influence.

Seems a bit odd to me when we hear that Moshiri is looking not for someone to buy the club but someone to invest money into the club.

Liverpool City Council offered him funding for the stadium at 7% interest and, given what's happened with interest rates, what a bargain that would have been. But given the financial position of our council, I doubt they could afford that deal even if the interest charged would be nearer 10%.

So if he really is just looking for an investor, then can someone explain what investing maybe 𧶀 million gets you? You don't own the club and seeing as you would be investing in a business that has lost hundreds of millions over the last few years, there's no chance of a dividend.

So the only possibility of getting a return on your investment is to help fund the new stadium and sell within 12 months of the club moving to a new stadium.

But even that is fraught with danger: it's assuming Everton are still in the Premier League, and that the top European clubs haven't introduced a new European Super League which both Barcelona and Real Madrid are still committed to.

If that happens, the revenue from Sky will move from the Premier League to the new ESL and that would leave any club not in the ESL in a very precarious position.

Brian, I doubt very much that Sky will move ANY of their revenue to any proposed ESL, simply because subscriptions would be cancelled in their millions. Nobody would want to watch a meaningless tournament, which would be motivated by money only.

Rob 63,

While you are right, many domestic subscribers would maybe cancel. Whether we like it or not, the biggest supported clubs are Barcelona, Real Madrid, Man Utd, Liverpool and to a lesser degree Arsenal. And Sky is sold all over Europe and I am sure it would mean a drastic cut in finances to the Premier League.

Being completely unbiased which obviously I am not, but I can well understand why Europe's top clubs want their own TV deals. Although both Barcelona and Real Madrid get a far bigger slice of the TV money than our clubs here get, I am sure if the ESL was reinstated, their cut from that deal would be more than they get from their current TV deal.

Also I can well understand the argument from Liverpool and Man Utd wanting a bigger slice of the TV cake than they currently get. Their games are probably the ones with most neutrals watching.

Compare that to a game between say Bournemouth against Southampton, I doubt many neutrals would watch that yet they get the same slice of the TV money as the more popular clubs.

Brian.

You are right to be concerned as just this week Perez from Real Madrid was banging the drum for the Super League. He still insists that it should happen and that football is sick and will die without the new Super League.

He compared the fact that Nadal has played Federer 49 times, and no-one was bored by the repetition. Whereas they have played Liverpool only 8 times in all competitions and 'fans' want to see this fixture more often.

As the saying goes if the RS were playing in my garden I would go out and pepper spray them. Sorry meant to say close the curtains.

Not sure how you can compare the two sports to support the argument, but Perez has?!

Mike @ 46 and 54:

Having an interest in all matters global for over 40 years, I have to vehemently disagree with you. In all that time I have never seen or heard the word "Globalist" given or used as an automatic synonym with the connotations you allude, nor discussions around the fact - until last week when you mentioned it here on TW.

If there has been co-opting or aligning going on, it is not in the manner that you state. To broadly imply that all postings viewed on chat boards and such as you have, should be taken in that context, is misinformed and wholly incorrect. It's not "Code" for anything.

I have seen Jews cited as globalists... and Americans, Englishmen, Germans, Chinese and all other applicable races and nationalities, as these comprise the identities of globalists.

James, I think Pepper Spray is appropriate. Leave your curtains open.

I also get what you're saying Brian. Those who are more successful should rightfully and will demand their share.

It does however counter the argument that a lot of Evertonians will feel.

And I will inevitably stray into political territory. But the rich get richer rather than sharing the spoils.

I'm all for incentivised reward for hard work, self improvement and success. But I also believe in giving back to those who need a bit of a push to do the same.

I guess that works in football. Or should.

Since when did we get so arrogant as to knocking back multi-billionaire takeovers due to pathetic moral/liberal hangups?

No wonder we never win anything or even compete when our "fans" have turned into snowflakes.

Do you want to win or sit smugly at home as a loser (again) thanks to taking the moral high ground that no other club in the world would even consider?

Danny,

While things are looking much more positive on the pitch, I still have major worries about the things that are happening off the pitch. Not least how we fund the completion of the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, which is an issue that Moshiri is pursuing.

Will Uefa bring in the much talked about policy of clubs only being allowed to spend 70% of income on players' wages? I think it's a move that needs to happen as clubs even in dire straights seem unwilling to bring in a salary cap.

Although, with Everton currently spending in excess of 90% on players' wages, that could have real problems for us. All this and still talk of a European Super League being rejuvenated.

I think that's why there are circling hawks tempting Moshiri right now, Brian. It's an investment opportunity.

I echo your concerns though. Just when the owner finally realised what he needed to do on the football side, he's being tempted with the lure of magic beans so someone else can benefit from the long-term investment.

Where's the axe to cut down the beanstalk?

Will #66, you are entitled to disagree, but you would be hard-pressed to find a Jewish person who would support your view. Jews and anti-Semites both understand the connotation even if it escapes the wider world.

Rabbi Rachel Barenblat, the poet and philosopher, explains it this way:

“Globalist” is a term with an anti-Semitic history, and it's often understood as code for “Jews” so this language is activating and traumatizing for a lot of Jews. Especially in the wake of a bomb attack at the home of George Soros, a prominent Jewish philanthropist who is often slammed with the “globalist” label.

The connection between globalists and Jews is, in part, the old anti-Semitic smear that Jews are not truly loyal citizens of any nation. Hitler described Jews as “international elements” that “conduct their business everywhere” thus harming and undermining good people who are “bound to their soil, to the Fatherland.” Use of globalist as a negative term can be a dog whistle for the far right: those who recognize its roots in Hitler's philosophy recognize that it's an encoded way of denigrating Jews. (my emphasis)

Gordon Haber of the Jewish Chronicle is more blunt:

For the alt-right — aka, American neo-Nazis — the word “globalist” is pretty much a synonym for “Jews.” As in the Jews like George Soros who, they argue, want to install a global government, or the Jews who already pull the strings of the global government, depending upon which paranoid Jew-hater you're talking to.

That's my point, Will. Naturally anyone is free to use the word "globalist" in its usual academic context, but any Jew or neo-Nazi within earshot will instantly assume they are anti-Semitic.

Mike, with respect, those quotes are from Jews, who would be most aware of any actual incidents of such, as you allude. This is not to condone or minimize it.

The word alone is simply not perceived like that IMO; it relates to the groups and individuals operating in an increasingly global manner, irrespective of personal classification. There is enough stifling of reasonable debate as it is, by levelling -isms at innocent people.

If every Jew that ever operated/operates globally in the sense here, never did or ceased to do so, that leaves the enormous amounts of others that people need or wish to discuss. Most discussing globalism in my own experience, are discussing globalism.

Michael @ 51:

"Isn't it just the New World Order conspiracists and others on the far right..."

Michael, I think I can make a good guess at what you class as a New World Order conspiracist. Interesting to see you label them all as far right though.

You might want to add Gordon Brown and George H. W. Bush to your list for starters, seeing as they are both recorded on film discussing that New World Order conspiracy.

Got to agree with Will on this one.

The importance of preserving and persevering with the correct 'academic' meaning of 'globalist' for the majority has to be protected against this insidious tendency to demonize and weaponize words themselves by invidious minority groups.

In the context here (that is, EFC), there is no Nazi and minimal Jewish connection (George Soros having made clear he is not religious). The meaning of the word for the rest of us far outweighs the twisted usage by the two minority groups you call out, Mr Gaynes.

Strange bedfellows indeed.

Michael, essentially... welcome to the era of word games.

Will, my point was not how it's perceived by the general public, but by those two groups. I'm simply sharing the awareness of how it is being heard by members of those groups. People can of course choose to use it anyvway.

Context is also important. Personally, when I hear the word used within a discussion of world economics, I take it at face value. When I see it used as it is in post #40, paired with Soros's name as it always is in the neo-Nazi world, I immediately make another decision about the user. And fair or not, there's no doubt in my mind.

Minority groups? Have you read a Pew poll lately gentlemen? There is plenty of bigotry to be observed there if you would. The attachment to a word that has many synonyms is a bit much to ascribe to defending oneself against word games.

Michael K, twisted usage by the TWO groups??

So Jewish awareness of an anti-Semitic term going back 100 years is twisted in your view?

My view of that comment is one I won't express here. Maybe someday one of my wish will come true for us to be in the same room. I will enjoy that interaction.

The same wouldn't be said in that instance Mike, which is the whole problem with internet threads like this one.

Mike,

The scope of your comment @46 was exceedingly broad. It included a vast number of people who, I feel certain – as Kieran @46 and Will @66 admirably demonstrated – have no such intention when using the word.

In your comments @71 and @76, you rightly narrowed the scope to your two minority groups, leaving the rest of us to use the word in its conventional unweaponized meaning.

Thank you.

Ah right, the honor system. Why not just offer a fellow Toffee the consideration of using another word? Is it really that important when someone is making a valid claim about it's harmful use elsewhere?

Seems Frank @60 might be a little loose with his language as well.

I don't think it's correct to say that George Soros "tried to bankrupt England" and it certainly wasn't in the time of Harald Wilson's government.

Seems the Bank of England were struggling to protect the pound (sounds familiar) and increased their base rate from 10% to 12% to 15% in one day! As a currency speculator, Soros was able to benefit by an astounding $1Bn.

Meanwhile, England (and the Bank of England) got through it... with lessons learned? Perhaps the next weeks and months will show if they are still remembered.

Michael 82

Really Harald ? where did you get that spelling its Harold. Also Lampard was actually correct all the papers said "Soros the man that broke the bank of England". The Conservative Government made Soros a billion pound back in 1992 when they tried to protect the pound from falling which increased interest rates and I think they peaked at 16%. You say lessons learnt I wish they had been as we have seen in the last week how again a Conservative government through stupid ideology have again caused the bank of England to pump in 60 billion of our money to stop what happened in 1992 happening again.

I've heard today that this is now moving forward towards another exclusivity deal, and that these people are not interested in owning a share of Everton, but want to own the whole club.

It might be a load of pony, and I'm certain that Kenwright will be trying everything to keep Moshiri interested in Everton because, if these people want to own the whole club, then it's going to be the end of a very successful era for our Chairman, even though he will have overseen the most unsuccessful era in the history of Everton Football Club.🤞

Interesting, Tony, very interesting.

I'd like to think it could be the Final Countdown for him, albeit with another nice big payout. You say they want the whole club... I wonder if they know about those pesky independent shareholders who are very capable of causing trouble?

Perhaps you could put in a word?

I've got a friend from London, who has a neighbour (Lord Phillip Harris) on the Arsenal board, Michael, who also helps run the commercial side of the Gunners, and he reckons he's got 17 Everton shares.

I've been trying to get my mate to get a couple off him just so I can go to the next AGM and heckle Bill, but maybe I might be able to save myself a few quid if there is any truth in these rumours!

That ship may have already sailed, Tony, so don't part with your hard-earned.

The Impressario has put the kybosh on regular AGMs since last year – a sneaky change to the Articles of Association, voted in by Bill and Farhad on the nod.

But, if they do by some miracle hold an AGM and you do want to go, I'll nominate you – if they still allow proxies.

I've heard Bill can be a bit patronising towards proxies, Michael, but my guess is that it's just his nature and one of the reasons why the corridors of Everton have long been full with nepotism.

I absolutely hate nepotism, unless it's accompanied by real talent. This is why I've always been despaired by Mr Kenwright with the obvious contradiction being that I've usually got a bit of time for clever conniving bastards, and this is something in which chairman Bill definitely excels.

Hope somebody is talking to Jim Radcliffe at INEOS given his comments today. I appreciate he has no links to the club and is a Man Utd/Chelsea supporter but is clearly keen to get involved with football and is a very successful both in business and interests in other sports.

Seems like none of the top clubs at the moment are available and given the new stadium (INEOS naming rights possible as well?) surely Kenwright and/or Moshiri should be in discussion with him?

John,

There was a comment on ToffeeWeb about Radcliffe on here about a month or more ago, that as Radcliffe has his yacht in Monaco that Moshiri should visit him for lunch and talk to him about Everton.

I think at that time I commented that, if Radcliffe did take over, he would have the players training on bikes. It would be nice to have Radcliffe and maybe he could get the players to cycle to training instead of using flashy cars.

Hmmm
Report in the Guardian that Everton's usual Accountants (BDO) declining to do work on EFCs Accounts ( something related to Moshiri's ownership

If Jim Ratcliffe, multi-billionaire INEOS owner and Oldham old boy is interested in acquiring a football team and EFC is for sale then expect absolutely nothing to be done about it whatsoever. Logic and good things don't apply to Everton Football Club especially under Chairman Fraudright's stewardship.

https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1577583546524385280?t=qoHOsV2mNYF5fH9HgFm0tA&s=19

That link didn't work for me Stephen #93
I was interested that Ratcliffe was quoted as saying that it was a Premier club in England or Europe that the Ineos sports stable was lacking, not necessarily a Premier League club. He already owns Nice but doesn't put them in the Premier bracket.
Would the blues qualify? Back in the sixties and eighties when I watched them win 4 titles, the answer would have been a resounding yes.
I'm afraid the world no longer sees us in that light.
More positively, Ratcliffe said the "Premier" club he purchased would be run as a community club, an area of expertise we are well versed in.
BTW, some sources quote Sir Jim's wealth as $10 billion dollars against Todd Boehly's measly stash of $5 billion. Come on boys pen Bill, take Sir Jim to the theatre and have a meaningful chat!