Premier League respond to FAB concerns over takeover delay

Masters seems to be saying there is no power to reject 777 Partners as such, only a power to not approve them unless 777 Partners show them the money and its source.

The Premier League seem to be suggesting that either 777 Partners need to withdraw or the current owner needs to find a different buyer?

Well, not ‘funny' in any sense as it seems entirely consistent with the Premier Leagues approach to regulation.

We didn't really want to punish the breakaway six, because we didn't really want to punish their fans, but this is different even though we are aware that Evertonians, have been protesting against the way the club, has been getting run for a very long time now.

unfortunately for them, we have nothing in the rules to force a sale, even though this would protect the club, from going into administration, and probably force the team who have played the most top flight games in England, into the second tier, especially because we have already punished them with a points deduction once/twice already this season.

It seems that Moshiri can look for someone else anytime he wants.

Moshiri's claim that the takeover is on the home straight is worthless until 777 Partners prove they are able to fund the takeover. They have failed to do so and cannot be made to by the Premier League.

Moshiri can only make a decision according to the exclusive agreement he has signed with 777 Partners. He has not a good history regarding such agreements, never having the initiative, or not using it if he does have it.

The 777 Partners takeover could roll on and on…

Paul infers this relates to a condition (within the MSP / ESDC agreement) on the date by which MSP expect their loan to be repaid.

Discussion: Master's seems to use salient point terms that complaint uses such as 'small club' answering back to the Parliament Committee question, at that time, and "uncertainty" where FAB used it. This makes it appear Master's had/ has engaged with and answered the complaint and complainant at least on a superficial level. Master's uses 'funding' term more than once and with non concrete terms, for the hypothetical: if, but with a further unknown: 'when;' and in the context of 'proposed investor' and 'alternative investment.' This suggests there are serious issues with 777 meeting the PL rules for owners' criteria notwithstanding in its absence problems to "secure" ownership (beneficial or equitable interest, means other ownership rights than title: in name and by transfer of deed: LPA, 1925). Master's issue/s with takeover is probably 777 have not met funds criteria and further suggests 777 are not in a current position to (if/ when), are currently searching for other investors (alternative/ source); permitted under the rules except (caveat) a "disqualifying event." What is the disqualifying event in the context of 777?

Now where's my axe and lumberjack shirt, I have a tree to chop down.

Moshiri meanwhile seems to have put whatever chips he has left on 777 Partners with no viable or realistic alternative (despite the unfounded rumours).

To be fair to the Premier League (and I hate having to make that effort), they don't seem to have seen anything from 777 Partners that comes near satisfying their need to see evidence of adequate funding.

On that basis, it's difficult to be critical of them in that regard (difficult though that may be). If 777 Partners are the only show in town, we may well be truly screwed.

If 777 can't provide adequate evidence of funds, then the Premier League are right to hang fire.

Imagine the uproar if they did jump the gun, approve them, and then the whole thing collapsed? They'd probably have some liability due to their approving the deal.

Once again, the blame lies completely at Moshiri's feet.

It took Ratcliffe, a well-funded successful and ruthless businessman, time to get approval for his involvement in Man Utd.

After seeing the financial mess Moshiri's got us into, I can understand the Premier League's trepidation.

Through the PSR fiasco they've shown they can act whenever they choose, supposedly ‘protecting' the clubs from reckless owners. Why allow a stalemate position to persist if the club rather than the owner would benefit from a shorter time in limbo?

It's not about hurrying them up to say yes to 777 Partners, just that 777 Partners should get a limited time to demonstrate their capabilities and, if they cannot, then they should actively be rebutted.

Everything seems to point to Everton going out backwards permanently as, while the club is poorly run, the Premier League don't seem to be helping.

Anybody want an almost-finished pink elephant?

I hope for once Esk is correct and MSP can seize Moshiri's stake next week. That'll fuck him, fuck 777 Partners, and hopefully help us.

Is there are a case for MSP or 777 to claim Bramley Moore if 777 default on proof of funds term/s to buy Moshiri's stake?

Interesting read on The Esk's article.

As I understand law or here equity, equity steps in where law is strict, as equity follows law. Equity is implied in the jurisdiction or equity whether in express terms or not (equitable trust). This also creates equitable interest in Everton property including land. It doesn't strictly require express terms as MSP loans to convert to equity, as equity stands in where law is strict. Security such as mortgages or land charges benefit secure creditors banks (or mortgagees), first and other registered land charges later (Land Registration Act later). MSP and 777 have loans attached to Everton. Moshiri has attachment to Everton's limited company as main share holder/ in addition to assets and property in his own right (personal property/ assets). It wouldn't surprise if MSP or 777 attach their equitable interests to our new stadium. What other assets do we have besides our club and Stadium worth several hundred millions. Has the stadium been ring fenced to protect it from MSP and 777? Could MSP or 777 claim Bramley Moore for outstanding secured or unsecured loans or even share Bramley Moore between and rent back to Everton Ltd?

I don't know if you're taking the Mickey... I am saying a situation when ownership is not strictly legal ownership via possession and title in a person's name, as only 4 people can hold legal ownership or title rights to land and the others say in a several person co-ownership have other types of rights called beneficial or equitable types of ownership rights.

Like you buy a home and pay it off, you then have legal ownership as you have the deeds: title and possession.