03/04/2024 17comments  |  Jump to last

The Eveton Fan Advisory Board have published the response they have received from Premier League CEO, Richard Masters, to their recent letter seeking clarity over the decision-making process regarding 777 Partners' proposed takeover of the Club.

FAB Chair, Dave Kelly, wrote to the League, Farhad Moshiri and 777 Partners expressing the representative body's concern at both the length of time it was taking for the buyout proposal to be vetted, the lack of communication from the Everton hierarchy, and the uncertainty that has created among the fanbase.

Moshiri replied to say that he was confident the situation was "in the home straight" and now Masters has addressed key questions the FAB has around the Premier League Board's deliberation process.

"We fully recognise the uncertainty that a proposed takeover of a Club can cause amongst its fanbase," Masters wrote. "We also understand how, in the present case, the time that the process is taking has compounded that uncertainty. The Board ... takes its responsibilities under the League's Owners' and Directors' Test (OADT) extremely seriously.

Article continues below video content

"If the Board finds that it is not satisfied with the source and sufficiency of the funding, it remains open to the proposed investor to remedy that by, for example, securing new funding that does satisfy the Board. There is no time bar in the Rules for this but the purchase may not be completed unless and until the Board is satisfied."

Masters summarised the process by concluding:

"[I]f an individual or company that wishes to purchase a Club is subject to a 'Disqualifying Event', they will be rejected. However, if the Board is not satisfied with the source and sufficiency of the funding behind the purchaser, that purchaser has the opportunity to address the concern. While the Rules provide no deadline for the latter, in practice it of course remains open to the incumbent owner to move on to seek alternative investment elsewhere."

Moshiri agreed to sell his 94.1% stake in Everton to Florida-based 777 Partners on 15 September last year but both parties are approaching the seven-month mark without a decision having been made by the League either way.

777 met with the Premier League last month to answer specific questions and have since been informed by letter that the takeover would be approved providing certain conditions were met. 

Quotes sourced from @EFC_FanAdvisory on Twitter/X

Reader Comments (17)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer ()

Andy Riley
1 Posted 03/04/2024 at 19:39:04
All seems a bit never-ending and going round in circles.

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?

Si Cooper
2 Posted 03/04/2024 at 19:50:46
It's funny that an organisation that is vigorously pursuing punishments in response to certain types of reckless behaviour by owners and executives of clubs, has no apparent interest in preventing a self-serving owner allowing a club to slowly bleed to death whilst holding out for the best possible outcome for themselves only.

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

Tony Abrahams
3 Posted 03/04/2024 at 20:19:40
They have not provided what we have asked for and until they do, they won’t be allowed to purchase Everton. If this continues and the current owner doesn’t find himself another buyer, then the silly man, is probably going to end up forcing Everton, into administration, and he will lose himself a lot of money in the process.

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.

James Flynn
4 Posted 03/04/2024 at 23:31:03
'While the Rules provide no deadline for the latter, in practice it of course remains open to the incumbent owner to move on to seek alternative investment elsewhere."

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

Jerome Shields
5 Posted 04/04/2024 at 08:06:13
The Premier League has not got the power to stop the takeover, other than if there is a disqualifying event. No time limit can be imposed, though it is recognised that delay can have a detrimental effect. The Premier League can do nothing about this.

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…

Brent Stephens
6 Posted 04/04/2024 at 08:33:46
In his ToffeeWeb article on 30 March, Paul the Esk says that Premier League conditions on 777 Partners approval include proof of funding to complete the new stadium and Everton repayment of MSP £158m stadium loan by mid-April 2024 [my emphasis].

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

John Wilson
7 Posted 04/04/2024 at 10:51:02
Master's key term/s: "funding" with negative implications: "proposed investor," "alternative investment," uncertainty, sufficiency, 'secure,' new [funding, or for different] "source," with non concrete terms: If (hypothetical)/ when (time frame), and "disqualifying event."

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?

Jack Convery
8 Posted 04/04/2024 at 11:05:13
Sometimes I think Monty Python now runs everything because you can't make this stuff up.

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

Mark Murphy
9 Posted 04/04/2024 at 11:15:10
Jack, have you looked in your lingerie drawer?
Jim Burns
10 Posted 04/04/2024 at 12:35:08
Sounds to me like the ball is firmly in 777's half of the court - but they are struggling to find it.

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.

Charles Ward
11 Posted 04/04/2024 at 14:10:25
Jim 110

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.

Si Cooper
12 Posted 04/04/2024 at 22:59:33
Jim and Charles, why don't you think it would be appropriate for the Premier League to prevent it from becoming an excessively drawn-out process if the delay and uncertainty itself is detrimental to the club?

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.

Alan J Thompson
13 Posted 04/04/2024 at 00:10:40
Did any clubs picture this series of events when they put a management body in place as it seems the tail is now wagging the dog?

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?

Kieran Kinsella
14 Posted 05/04/2024 at 00:37:29
I hate the Premier League but come on, show me the money. 777 Partners bought that Aussie club whilst refusing to provide financial info and encumbering them in debt so in the end the Aussie FA let them have it. 777Partners are bouncing checks all over town and trying to give us and the Premier League the old Chris Samuelson “check is in the mail” routine.

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.

John Wilson
15 Posted 05/04/2024 at 14:16:47
Kieran at 14.

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?

Bobby Mallon
16 Posted 06/04/2024 at 20:11:14
John Wilson. Can you repeat that please.
John Wilson
17 Posted 07/04/2024 at 23:38:39
Ha ha, Bobby.

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.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.

How to get rid of these ads and support TW

© ToffeeWeb