Friedkin Group takeover of Everton collapses

When will this fucking circus ever end???

I wonder where this leaves us now. Will the other parties now be back in for us?

And goodnight, Everton Football Club.

Everton back in crisis as Friedkin Group's proposed takeover off

"The Friedkin Group (TFG) has been in exclusive talks with Everton for the last four weeks but withdrew from negotiations on Thursday, citing concerns about the club's debt to 777, a private investment firm based in Miami.

That £200million ($258m) debt, which is comprised of a series of loans 777 made to Everton last season, is now controlled by American insurance firm A-Cap, the original source of that money.

TFG's concerns about the debt are related to the fact that 777 is now in the hands of insolvency experts after its complex web of portfolio companies started to unravel earlier this year, following months of lawsuits over unpaid bills, late payments and allegations of fraud."

No wonder Moshiri was/is desperate for 777 Partners to take over as they are just as dodgy as he is. Tony Soprano could learn a few things from him.

What a shit storm this is going to be.

At a guess, A-CAP want a significantly higher interest rate or early repayment fee for being paid off before terms?

Also, fans giving Calvert-Lewin stick for not signing a new contract… Would you tie your future to this mess of a club???

It must be much more of a mess than even the most negative of us thought it might be. It's either that or Morshiri wanted more out of the deal and they wouldn't pay!

Oh well, now we can return to fretting about the new kit and travel plans to Sligo.

We are utterly fucked by the 777 situation.

Administration surely a near certainty now?

Who purchased Everton, you or the Russian billionaire? "Don't call us, well call you."

It is alarming that a decent owner who wanted to buy us is now off.

777 Partner are the fly in the ointment I suspect. That and potential links to Usmanov.

Dan Friedkin is a shrewd businessman, and he clearly doesn't want to get involved in any of the above. Quite frankly, who can blame him?

There was no way Moshiri was going to take the whole hit; he wants the funders and the buyer to share some of the pain.

It's 1892 all over again.

Moshiri is between a rock and a hard place. The Russian mob on one side and the Miami mafia on the other.

Sleep well with the fishes, Farhad.

It could be a very expensive legal mistake.

Who would buy the club now?

If Friedkin couldn't make it work, who the heck can???

Either that or we get into bed with another set of dodgy characters. The future's not bright, it's shite!

Best case scenario (and I tend to look at things optimistically) is that they will come back to the table as and when the obstruction is removed or reduced.

Might be hardball negotiation?

Bloke on BBC radio made a good point, the club will be worth a lot less if in the hands of administrators. So I can't blame a potential purchaser wanting a discount on the deal from Moshiri.

Reminds me of a spaghetti western, so still waiting for ‘the man with no name' to turn up. In the meantime, we need some cash to pay the millionaires on the pitch.

What seems to be a credible, reliable buyer comes along, looks at our books and decides to walk away.

Who else is going to come in and rescue us from the ever-growing and ever-more complicated mire of debt? If the Friedkin Group won't do it, why would anybody else other than the chancers and vultures who constantly circle ailing football clubs looking to make a quick buck?

This all stemmed from having an owner who had no idea how to run a business getting in bed with very dubious characters. No prizes for guessing who I am referring to.

Administration beckoning?

Well done, Blue Bill, and thanks for nothing.

Got that off my chest anyway.

Now, where's the Onana money?

All the hope of a fresh start at a new stadium with a new owner is over.

It's the hope that kills you.

A period of exclusivity does not appear to be something of benefit to Everton.

There should probably be a recognised period of transparency!

See you, young Branthwaite…

But let's remember that Friedkin were not the only consortium interested in buying the club. There were several.

They lent the club £200m during their attempted takeover and the issue was not paying that off but the serious legal action they are mired in in the US.

Friedkin Group did not know how long this would last for and there would be too much risk involved in continuing, so, instead of waiting a number of months for those issues to be resolved, they have decided to walk away.

What a mess…

It's the only way out.

I doubt they have the money to satisfy the Russian and American loan sharks.

They'll simply load the club with increasing amounts of debt with high interest rates. That will not benefit anyone.

Friedkin wanted Everton because of the new stadium. I think there are some terms in those 777 loans linking the stadium as security and they would survive the stadium purchase as a type of charge security that continues whilst the stadium increases in value.

I also don't get why Moshiri would pump his fortune into Everton and the stadium and walk away with Bramley-Moore Dock seaweed.

It makes sense that Moshiri is still tied to Everton until he gets his performance bonuses.

I don't think Friedkin would walk away because of the relationship with 777 Partners. It makes sense why Friedkin could pay off MSP etc but not 777 Partners.

All of this must have been pretty evident to them before they made a bid and entered the exclusivity agreement?

Any profit from the Onana sale will go into that rather than reinvesting in players.

“The view that will be taken by most of the investors and lenders — to date Everton is worth more as a going concern than a club that potentially goes into administration as they will lose any influence that they have over the operation of the club.

"We will see perhaps some additional commitment from the lenders because they fear the alternative is they could lose out substantially if the club does go into administration, which is the worst-case scenario.”

They had looked really positive as a new owner.

Back up Shit Creek.

Then ask MSP to come in with them and buy the club, turning their loan into shares???

For fuck's sake…

Perhaps 777 aren't in a position to negotiate anything with ongoing litigation and stretched finances. Who knows.

Complete shit show.

To slightly misquote Chris Rea: 'This ain't no Track.... This is the Road to Hell'!!

They could have transferred their loan to equity when the repayment period expired and taken control of the club. They decided to wait.

I never thought Friedkin was wealthy enough to grow the club anyway.

If Friedkin didn't fancy it, there must be some serious downside in the dog's breakfast that are our accounts.

Moshiri is a complete plant pot. It seems likely now Everton will be bought by an MSP or A-Cap for structuring debt, for investment not for a genuine takeover. Then later sold after making £millions. Maybe that's why Textor walked away. He guessed what was under the bonnet.

That Spanish supporter who posted online a brilliant analysis of Everton's options. MSP loan has now been paid off so MSP are now debted to Friedkin to the tune of £200M (Gav, Blue Echo), or like for like.

It feels like we are back to square one. For fuck's sake…

Complete fucking shit show as usual.

Ban me if you want moderators, you'll probably be doing me a favour. I'm so exhausted wanting something good to happen for this club of ours.

Long, long-suffering blue.

The Keystone Cops!!

Complete twats.

They lent the club £200M during their attempted takeover and the issue was not paying that off but the serious legal action they are mired in in the US.

Friedkin Group did not know how long this would last for and there would be too much risk involved in continuing, so, instead of waiting a number of months for those issues to be resolved, they have decided to walk away.

Seriously could someone explain who Blue Heaven Holdings are ?

MSP are no longer a lender to Everton as The Friedkin Group (TFG) repaid their loan. MSP do not owe TGF a cent; it is Everton who owe TGF £200 million which is secured on the new stadium.

A-Cap are teetering on the brink due to their exposure to 777 debt; 777 loans to Everton are unsecured - it holds no security on the stadium. They won't be taking us or anyone else over.

However, TGF wants the 777 and / or A-Cap and / or their creditors to take a significant haircut on their loans to Everton. Given that 777 and A-Cap are embroiled in legal case with those creditors it will take months to negotiate a deal with them.

Athletic states that Including TGF new loan, Everton owe more than £600m to three external lenders — A-Cap/777, Cheshire-based Rights and Media Funding and TFG — as well as £450m in shareholder loans to current owner Farhad Moshiri.

Expect more twists and turns. Stay tuned folks!!

I don't believe the existing loans situation is the real reason. Expecting the creditors to fold and submit or be dictated to seems a very unlikely strategy on which to pivot the whole deal.

Billy from Beyond has joined the party.

777 may be embroiled in a mire of legal and insolvency claims, including fraud, but so what? If we had to pay a premium it's the cost of business unless it's a ridiculously agreed amount and Moshiri won't pay or expects the buyer to..God sake, who knows.. but so much for the junior debt scenario, everyone wants to make a killing but noone trusts anyone.. big money, a game of chicken being played with our club..
Shysters, loan sharks using pension funds, the Mozart with money, Russian money and undue influence.. the seeds for all of this were planted by one man, then passed to The Incompetent one.
I for one would like to hear the foundations to the pullout, the risk actual, the showstopper. For it will lay open exactly what and who has done what to our club.

Instead of a steady managed growth of the team and the squad over a number of years he tried to get there in the first 12 months. Absolute tool of an ac**tant,(no I haven't misspelt that).

We're going into Administration I'd bet. I can't see how we can viably continue without a takeover and new injection of capital.

Just yesterday I never in a million years thought Friedkin would walk! Something came up in due diligence that's black as night I'd bet, and he was like, "Ya, fuck this."

We are, if we weren't already, officially a mess.

Hard headed businessmen see an opportunity but note forest gump and uncle ali are mindless buffoons and crooks and squeeze the life out of them by threatening to walk.

Would expect nothing less from what more informed parties have posted.

To mangle Arnies quote "they'll be back"

I meant the creditor MSP is now Friedkin..

"MSP or A-Cap for structuring debt", I meant an MSP type, not MSP itself.

Moshiri in any event in effect has successfully got 777 then followed by Friedkin to pay to keep the lights on and millions for the stadium, without touching his own money. Is he a genius in terms of knowing 777 was cracking at the seams, and knowing Friedkin wouldn't pay off 777. Did Moshiri call Friedkin's bluff, knowing or anticipating Friedkin would end due diligence because Moshiri or 777 wouldn't take a hair cut?

The outcome will be 777 Partners accept a much lower amount, then Friedkin takes over.

Both have absolutely no interest in Everton's future or their fans.

My worry now is a stadium sale could be our only way forward…. not good.

Friedkin knows if he pays off 777 he'll be helping them fuck more people? He realizes he has to wait for them to go under, otherwise he's replenishing their coffers by £200M and allowing them to wriggle their way out of the mess they are in?

If that's the case, Friedkin is waiting for 777 Partners to file bankruptcy, clearing the money Everton owe to them in repayment, and then getting back in the game?

Or... is it possible that those on the list owed money by 777 Partners can, if 777 goes under, sue Everton then for their losses, as the 777 £200 million passed to Everton?

I dunno. This is a trainwreck disaster.

It seemed A-CAP wanted to distance themselves from 777 Partners' house of cards. A-CAP may not be able to withstand loss of any support.

Friedkin backing away could be interpreted as testing their resolve while they consider their legal exposure. It could increase the uncertainty around A-CAP's valuation and significantly raise their financial and legal costs.

A-CAP perhaps thought they possessed a pressure point and will discover they are out of their league.

Usual disclaimer: I know fuck all.

I was personally very vocal (on here) about Moshiri at the time, and so it has come to pass. I hate to say "I told you so", and this is the first time I've mentioned it. I was one of the few who said when he took over, "Be careful what you wish for".

And here we are. Royally up shit creek. Honestly, I absolutely do hate to say I told you so...

Everton appears to be untouchable now - and am I the only one who thinks that perhaps people in the business world are now quite likely to want to have very little to do with Moshiri?

Bargepoles at the ready.

Would the Premier League have initiated their scrutineering on the prospective owners based only on an exclusivity period?

Basically, what is the shortest time from now the takeover could take?

The £50M Onana money is now unlikely to go to new players as I'd imagine some of this will go to running costs and the stadium in the short term. The next lot of Sky money was recently paid I think, or is near to being paid, so this hopefully moves the cliff edge back further.

This club really puts you through the wringer. Including Moshiri's shareholder loans too, the club has about £1B in debt, which is probably the value of the stadium when finished. We still have some valuable players and are in the Premier League, so administration should not be something to worry about.

Deep breath and wait for updates. Not exactly a great mental start for the players with the first game only about 3 weeks away.

My math says we need about a half million people at a thousand pounds per person to get to £500M. There's got to be enough people worldwide to get in on that.

I wouldn't be surprised if we haven't heard the last of The Friedkin Group.

Alan Myers says the club remains well funded in the short term, so let's see how it plays out? It wouldn't be Everton if it wasn't agonising.

He was my original choice.

The secured/unsecured status only comes into effect if Everton file for bankruptcy protection. A-CAP would be way down the list of creditors that receive any monies from the sale of our assets.

If they are truly concerned that Friedkin walking away may now lead to Everton going bankrupt, then they may relinquish the debt for “cents on the dollar”.

This may be Friedkin's thinking. Sit on the sidelines, and then pick up the pieces for a much lower cost down the road. Hence the debt swap on our main asset of the new stadium.

BBC Sport understands the major stumbling block has been a situation involving previous prospective buyer 777 Partners, whose proposed takeover plan had been backed by funding from financial insurers A-Cap.

777 Partners loaned Everton £200M during their attempt to take over and the issue was not paying that off, but the legal action that 777 Partners face in the US.

Friedkin Group did not know how long this would last for, was unclear about who was in charge of the loan, and was wary of any potential risk, so it decided to walk away rather than wait for the issues to be resolved.

The Friedkin Group, which injected £200M into the club and paid off a £158M loan to MSP Sports Capital and two local businessmen, will "remain a lender to the club", they said in a joint statement on Friday.

It is understood the loan from the Friedkin Group is a 'stable' one which means the group is not looking to call it in immediately and club sources have said Everton as a business is "absolutely not in a precarious position".

It isn't simply down to lack of backing or poor business acumen. If Usmanov had been free to splurge his money, we probably could've spent our way to the top of the Premier League.

Let's not completely discount the impact of the pandemic, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Premier League getting puritanical on Profitability and Sustainability to ward off government intervention.

And how can we secure the final £70M to complete the stadium?

The two AJ Bell guys or Saudi (anywhere), but please — no more Miami!

I don't think he will be back because once you publically walk away it is a sign of weakness to revisit.

Our best hope now is Michael Dell and Bell and Downing but even they might feel slighted by Moshiri.

Every time you feel a bit of optimism about Everton, they knock you down again.

They say third time is a charm. I just hope Andy Bell and George Downing should takeover. Moshiri should be kicked on his ass after that happens.

Didn't this group do the same before buying AS Roma? Mexican standoff. Game of chess. You decide…

There's not a scenario where we would owe 777 Partners nothing if they go bankrupt because basically we were the last group to get any money out of them after they let Flair and Bonza go to the wall and stiffed A-CAP.

Courts can claw back money paid to "preferential" creditors or disbursed to others in the months leading up to insolvency. 777 Partners clearly prioritized paying us that money over honoring other existing debts.

Which means the court will expect that we repay those funds in full so they can be evenly distributed to other creditors based on the hierarchy of who has higher claims on their money. And that is just the bankruptcy route assuming there is no criminal aspect to it all… which there appears to be.

I suspect the club may still be able to do some very limited deals (like the Lindstrom loan) but the idea of spending any money (even if we sell Onana) seems a bit fanciful.

The focus is presumably on remaining a going concern — with squad building somewhat down the list of priorities.

If The Friedkin Croup have indeed walked, then they clearly weren't the owners for us and so I say fuck 'em. If they don't want us, I don't want them. We need someone with deeper pockets — and I don't mean a clown, we already have one of those

Friedkin could come back. I believe they walked away from Roma, but went back. They could be pushing for a better deal for themselves. I guess that's business.

Or, other parties are waiting in the wings. I know I might get laughed at, but Everton is an attractive proposition. Fanbase, Stadium, City of Liverpool.

Otherwise, Moshiri is going to have to look behind the couch on his Yacht.

So, with the Friedkin Group now unable to come to an agreement with Moshiri, the responsibility is in his hands in what he is willing to take for his shares. Plus as majority owner, he is responsible for debts created since he became majority owner.

So what we have ended up with is a billionaire that our previous chairman was looking for, who has turned out to be more incompetent than himself.

The only thing that we can hope for now is there really are other groups that wish to buy, but there is something wrong at Everton FC that groups find after making offers, which tuns them off.

I can't imagine Moshiri, or rather our creditors and the New York civil/criminal courts suddenly capitulating to Friedkin if that is his game when there are seemingly other interested parties.

I mean, he may re-emerge at some point and obviously has a stake now in the stadium financing but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Friedkin really wanted the club. £200M isn't a token investment. This may not be over -- he also walked away from the Roma negotiations at one point, and Roma was a far less complicated situation.

Moshiri's financial mess is the football version of the Crowdstrike disaster. He's a walking Blue Screen of Death.

Once again Dyche and players don't know what's going to happen, not forgetting us poor supporters.

I think Mark @ 114, could have something saying that Mosiri may want to retain a percentage of the club, Usmanov might want to come back in at a later date.

All guesswork, but that is all we have.

Meanwhile, more debts are adding up.

Considering, once the stadium is finished in 3 months, his investment will increase.

That gives you c £70M of costs in debt servicing and it might be as high as £90M. Deloitte's (in my view, very optimistic) assessment of the incremental revenue from the stadium is £55M. My conclusion is the stadium is not worth close to £1B that some people quote, unless there is some upside not yet specified. At best around £500-600M.

The club as a whole appears to have around £1.1-£1.2bn of total debt. Despite some on here suggesting fanciful valuations seen through American investors eyes, I suggest the shares are worthless, and even that level of debt won't be sustainable. Relegation would of course end the argument for good.

Presumably this is what Friedkin sees. There have to be haircuts all round to make it stack up, and I don't mean a light trim. Someone further up suggested Friedkin put in a £200M extra on top of buying out MSP. I hope not because our debt then is even higher. Right now, whatever the club says, I cannot see how the year's accounts could be signed off on the basis of the club being a going concern.

Although it did at least seem there were a few interested parties a month or two back.

I'm also a little confused why not settling the 777 debt should lead to TFG pulling out. Just doesn't make sense.

Moshiri was very happy to take the £200M, so surely he must know where it originated. More fool him if this ends up with the FCA becoming involved.

If the money does end up to have come from a sanctioned entity, then surely Moshiri ends up in very hot water. I can hear those yacht engines revving up as I type.

"Set course, for the Crimean Peninsula, Captain. Get me the fuck out of here!"

Can we sue the Premier League for declaring Moshiri a Proper and Fit owner?

Is administration really a scenario? Currently what is our standing? Can anybody shed some light on this?

Not a bad idea. In fact I've sent a memo to The Friedkin Group.

If I get a reply I'll be sure to publish it on ToffeeWeb.

We can only hope...

Sligo Rovers does not matter; except for Seamus. If I read anyone saying bring on the season as if that somehow corrects things, I will fume and make that noise again.

What a position we find ourselves in. We now owe is it £400M in loans to two organisations who wanted to buy us but things did not work out. We owe Friedkin — am I right? — a further £158M for paying off the MSP loan.

Clearly Friedkin did want to buy us but the ghost of 777 Partners will haunt us for how many years to come? It seems from first glance that Friedkin pulled out because of the legal action those sleazy gobshites 777 — thank you fucking very much Moshiri you piece of worthless fluff shite — face with no sign at all of a timeline and concerns about who was in charge of giving loans the green light.

In other words, too much risk.

Friedkin acted it seems to me with sharp business acumen and ethics. They are serious people and serious about us. And what they have done here is to post a massive warning to any "decent" prospective buyer: Swerve!

How much damage have that fucking lying cheating fraud Kenwright and — I can't find the words — Moshiri done to us?

What was the source of that piece of fantasy shite that was put up saying that all was well? Can you tell us, eds?

This is all that matters to us; footy is secondary. Welcome to the precipice.

(Sorry if I am merely reeling off the words and emotions of others; I got up half-an-hour ago and have not read the thread.)

Oh no… will the Roma game be called off?

"Your debt, you pay out of what I give you, or we pay a lower price."

How confident I am in that?? Mid to fair. What a day…..

"Everton takeover OFF — plunging club into crisis and administration,"

10 minutes later:

"A Blue Hope. SunSport has learned that London-based investment firm Vici Private Finance are preparing to revive their bid and are confident of completing a takeover in a matter of weeks."

Well, that is all sorted then.

It's not the money; money did not "scupper" this deal. It was the risk involved in the 777 loan who face legal action that might apparently stretch out for a long time, and, apparently, there is confusion about who actually endorsed and provided the loan. So, too risky.

Moshiri chose 777 who will be a poisoned chalice for us for the future because The Friedkin Group have just sent a 1000-foot warning sign to anyone thinking of buying us.

For this, we have the Monaco charlatan and the disgusting Kenwright to blame. 777 Partners were just gung-ho happy-go-lucky venture capitalists who got a big footy hard-on. Moshiri picked them — the disgusting narcissist Kenwright chose Moshiri.

He picked the snidey fuckers. That's his debt. He should clear it and sell the club.

Why should a new investor bail him out of a shifty deal like that?

Moshiri probably can't afford to because his "money" is really his hence the USM statement in September:

“Mr Moshiri and his companies are indeed indebted to Mr Usmanov and entities affiliated with him. We hope that the debt will be repaid after Mr Moshiri closes the sale of the Everton club, which is now being actively announced in the press.”

My glimmer of hope with regards this deal is that Friedkin blaming 777 Partners is just spin and it was really down to him trying to chip Moshiri, who wouldn't budge. We will see.

'Why should a £200M loan from 777 Partners cause the withdrawal of Friedkin when it could simply be repaid?'

The answer is clearly it's not only the amount of the loan, but also its terms and conditions. These could include but not limited to:

● Who is the lender (the court cases muddy this and other points below)?

● Was a fraud committed by its lender or borrower (if the borrower was aware) which would reside with the company that Friedkin wanted to buy?

● From a sanctioned individual?

● Repayable at only the lender's request?

● Unrealistically high rate of interest pushing up financing costs?

● Convertible into equity at the lender's request (with someone that Friedkin wouldn't want to get into partnership with, if at all)?

● The £200M loan, together with all other debt, is greater than the asset and enterprise value of the company, so all lenders should take a haircut; 777 Partners (and others) may have refused?

● No doubt other issues coming to light as part of the extensive due diligence.

In all, it's clear that Friedkin (currently) views the actual issues to present too great a risk and that is the reason for ceasing negotiations. Of course, it's possible that Friedkin could resume negotiations if those risks eliminate over time but that's the issue — how much time do we have?

What a dog's dinner.

No wonder there was mention of A-CAP replacing 777 Partners, probably an attempt to cover up that failed; now, all is about to be exposed.

Fuck them — they are not going to fuck up my weekend.

Could be tied up in the courts for years. Meanwhile, who's keeping the show on the road? Administration could be inevitable.

Kenwright a crooked chancer and showman produces a mortgaged-to-the-hilt Everton for sale. No one bites. He meets a Shaman, hidden in Prince Rupert's Tower, whilst burying sacks of Arteta cash under the stone flooring. The two strike up an agreement.

Kenwright finally releases his podgy-fingered stranglehold on the club whilst the Shaman morphs into Farhad Moshiri. Thus enabling his Russian Oligarch friend's proceeds of crime cash to be laundered. Thus Kenwright keeps his decades long false promise of caretaking Everton in order to procure a rich owner. The Shaman in return keeps schtum about the Arteta cash.

They do the deal. But it all goes horribly wrong. They need to get rid of the club. The authorities smell two rats.

The Shaman, angry at Kenwright's deceitful and incompetent chairmanship, strikes him down. He tries to get rid of the club to a Ponzi scheme, but they just make the money mess worse.

Dressed as an attractive "Proposition", the Shaman lures a sweet innocent Friedkin into his lair. Only for them to escape the Goodison Castle once they see all the Skeletons and a Buddhaesque Kenwright's ghost, throwing chicken bones of bad luck, in the basement.

Do Everton stand a chance? Have the Demons won? Come along and see the show. Only £1.5B a ticket. No refunds.

Peter @ 120 😂🤣😂🤣

That is exactly how it happened!!!

It was very impulsive to take an interest in buying Everton, maybe it was a nice idea but then he thought about the problems with already having a big club and then decides to say No. Just that simple.

He could have easily paid off 777 Partners or brought in Bell and Downing to pay that off and give them a share.

Just doesn't make sense.

I think there's a lot more cloth to be cut here.

Something doesn't add up, unless something has come up resentful from the US A-CAP proceedings which wasn't in the Everton data room.

On the verge of administration, teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and we are still being charitable by handing contracts out to conmen like Dele Alli, and playing fucking Mason Holgate, a bigger conmen than Alli, and Maupay — noplay.

I said it over 2 years ago, if we are still a going concern in 12 months, I'll be shocked!

Methinks thou dust protest too much. The fear of administration appears to be completely fan driven — by fans like you who can't keep their shit together.

And as for this classic of cognitive dissonance:

"I said it over 2 years ago, if we are still a going concern in 12 months, I'll be shocked!"

Seriously? Oh the irony.

Brilliant!

Have a beer and enjoy the sunshine.

In a thread of depression, this is gold! 🤣

The club is a mess, but when I look at old dilapidated Goodison Park after driving along Priory Road after looking at Anfield, I sometimes have to continue driving towards Boundary Street,just to see the beauty of the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock.

We are just fans who simply love our club. I have been getting second-hand information from people close to this deal and the three words that never seem to be far from their lips are that it's "very fucking murky".

(These words usually come after "the fans really haven't got a clue how bad things are, even if we think we do” — and definitely deserve a lot better.)

I hope it's not too late for those American Investors I kept going on about. If this happens to be the case, then I can only assume that this is because of Keith Harris, who I hope becomes the future chairman of Everton Football Club.

Downing and Bell would be great but how do we know that they won't become like Bill Kenwright if they become part owners of our club? Whereas Harris will only be an employee who his desperate for his club to get back to where they belong.

The fact that in their negotiations to buy Roma, the deal collapsed 2 months before it was resurrected and confirmed gives me real hope this is not the end of this purchase saga.

Hopefully, once the saga concludes, all's well that ends well.

Paul Kossoff seem to love a good old cockney Jack Palance and 'cor blimey jig when times go dark. He would have loved London's Great Plague (1665) when 60,000 cats and dogs were killed with clubs. The problem for him is that his posts are a stream of attention-seeking crude hyperbole with no substance at all.

This had me in stitches and I'm keeping it for posterity. It shows the sort of thought that went into PK's 66 words (is that a record?):

"I said it over 2 years ago, if we are still a going concern in 12 months, I'll be shocked!": eee aww 🐴

I'm still hoping the Qataris will blow off PSG and take a punt on the Premier League with us.

Where it starts to get less comfortable is when potential buyers start seeing us as riskier than before.

Similar to taking a loan. There'll be someone out there willing to match your risk profile, but the nature of those lenders and their expectations starts to change.

We're getting down to those willing to really take a gamble. The payday loan of football club buyers.

The only way that changes is if expectations from Moshiri change to bring decent investors back to the table.

Friedkin lent us money for a slice of the ground, same as MSP, same as 777 Partners.

Everton Football Club won't own that fucking stadium, they will be tenants — mark my words.

It's business and any new owners will want to limit their exposure, especially to 777 Partners as it's inevitable that they will fold. Administrators for 777 Partners will only get what people are prepared to pay them. This guy Friedkin will only pay what he can get away with.

Everton in all this is a pawn on the chessboard. None of these potential investors are remotely interested in the fans. Their only motivation is to pay as little as possible now so that they can realise their assets possibly within 5 years to get some other mug on the hook.

Our only asset is the stadium but that may not be ours for too long. We'll be tenants — like what Billy Bullshitter did in Finch Farm.

As someone apropos already said, footy is secondary... the future of the club is at stake.

I reckon there's more to come... there must be more to this Friedkin deal that's been stopped than Everton supporters will ever know.

Seriously, the irony of the ringfenced and financed Kings Dock stadium is that Mr Kenwright didn't want to be just a tenant, although this obviously changed when he sold Bellefield and the club began renting Finch Farm.

Every single operating cost of the club over the last couple of years does seem to have been put onto the overall cost of the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, so I can only assume the rent would be absolutely extortionate if this does happen!

If this was a bluff by Friedkin it could backfire on him.

Today (19 July), there's a report in the Globo newspaper that A-CAP, who have taken over 777's interests in the club, are in discussions with Vasco to amicably settle the dispute and reach a financial settlement. A-CAP have made clear that they have no interest in operating any football interests. Here's the relevant extract from the article:

"According to Vasco's president, A-CAP has no interest in continuing in the soccer business, and an agreement for the sale of the shares (which were owned by 777 and passed to A-CAP) has become more likely.

At the presentation of executive director Marcelo Sant'Ana, on the 5th, the president said that there had been a meeting looking for a good agreement for both parties and that he was waiting for an analysis and response from A-CAP.

The first point was to go over the financial scenario and some of the non-compliances of the former partner (777). They'll make an assessment in two weeks, they said. If we wanted a bad relationship, we'd leave. We (Vasco) don't want that, we want a financial agreement in which there is no loss for A-Cap, which was 777's biggest creditor.

The search for a new investor isn't just financial — that's what we've received most from the market. The search also involves knowing who will be a good fit for Vasco."

I'm not sure what to make of all this in the context of the latest news. Something clearly went wrong in their relationship with Vasco.

At least in the Vasco situation, it sounds like A-CAP are trying to achieve an orderly withdrawal. But then, who knows what is really happening here?

A-CAP have every incentive to get their money out as quickly as possible. But there's no suggestion in the press that these dealings with 777 or A-Cap are problematic, in the same way that they are in the case of Everton's takeover discussions.

Or is the issue that the loan could be dodgy or presents too much risk?

I assume the latter as The Friedkin Group knew about the £200M loan before they entered exclusivity… unless A-CAP can't negotiate because of the court case?

Apologies for all the questions.

The incentive to go for a fire sale is now shrunk to vanishing point, cos all the value is in the stadium, and the stadium will lose at least half its value if we were allowed to go bust.

. . . . . . If that (negotiating settlement in the complex King/A-Cap/777 Partners relationship) was not difficult enough, then there is a further complexity in the US Courts.

There is a civil case case being heard in the Southern District (of New York), where Leadenhall claim that their loans of $609 million are secured against the assets of amongst others, A-CAP.

This is disputed of course, by A-CAP but whilst Leadenhall have such a claim, currently unresolved — it's almost impossible for a new owner or potential new owner of Everton to settle the A-Cap/777 loan — certainly not at a discount.

A preliminary injunction granted by the Court forbids King or A-CAP from disposing of assets — the Everton loan is such an asset.

A settlement below par could be seen as a dissipation of assets, something forbidden (unless viewed as in the normal course of business) by the preliminary injunction. (My emphasis)

If Leadenhall win their case, they want control of that loan and any settlement — not King or A-Cap. Similarly, the Court may take the view that a court appointed administrator is the most appropriate body or person to take control of such negotiations.

Therefore it is impossible (or seems impossible) for a new owner or prospective owner to complete the deal of buying Everton without settlement of the above.

There was a Settlement Conference convened for July 10th. There has been no word from the Court or documents placed in the public domain as to what the final decision should be.

The only possible solution for a prospective owner, prior to a decision by the Court, might be to place the outstanding loan figure in escrow to be dissipated in due course. This would require the approval of the Court.

However this seems like an unnecessary burden and leap of faith by any prospective owner and with all the other costs associated with acquiring Everton is probably more than one step too far, and is likely to be the primary reason for Friedkin's withdrawal.

It should be noted that the Friedkin Group has acted properly and in good faith throughout this process.

The full article here: Major, unresolved uncertainties make Everton's sale to new owners a real problem

The company is not affected. Business as usual. Calm down.

But there's more to come in this saga of Everton and the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock — surely is a very viable catch, on the right business model?

One might argue we were not a going concern then, any more than we are now. It reminds me of that question: How do companies go bankrupt? Slowly at first...

In the '80s, we had just three seasons of joyous trophy winning — and we all know why that was then immediately curtailed.

When the Premier League was instigated, we were still regarded right across the world as a club easily "big" enough (in world-wide terms) to be one of the few founder clubs.

But by then a certain shyster was gaining more and more of our club to boost his self-aggrandisement and, eventually, his personal bank account massively.

Realistic hope dwindled further for me, despite winning the FA Cup nearly 30 years ago now (from an abject league position, mind, as ever by then and ever since when it comes to being equipped to win a trophy) as the '90s unfolded.

What's been delivered onto our club and us throughout this 21st Century was hopeless from the start of it but, in recent years, we've had cause to think back to "hopelessness" as "good times", allegedly, because the charlatans at the top are now delivering "desperation" to us all as a 24/7 diet and they seemingly hope we'll swallow it.

NSNO?

Yeah, right.......!

I cannot disagree with anything; good post.

Thank you for that, it fills the hole in my reasoning regarding the legal issue on strings attached to the repayment of loans from 777 & A-CAP. Until the claims against the company are dealt with, no deal or even repayment of the loan can be addressed.

One has to consider if this becomes a serious impediment to any purchaser of the club until the matters are resolved in the US?

The persistence of Moshiri to continually align himself with 777 Partners as the best option cannot be sensibly explained, as in doing so he has almost certainly ensured he will eventually lose all his (or his friend's) investment.

I suspect any other interested parties may also sit and have to wait until the 777 Partners debacle has been sorted. The risk to everyone else is no agreement as all will lose, killing off the cash cow.

The balance of power swings or teeters in the wind...

Come on down FC St Domingo 2024... or a variation thereof.

Billionaire accountant my arse, or maybe that's the trouble — too clever for his and our own good.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive?"

Look at what and who we have been associated with since Kenwright got his hands on the club and you begin to understand the conniving group of shysters he got into bed with.

Offshore loans, hidden from everyone except to those who made a killing and have done so for the last 25 years. Rounded off with the ultimate layer of Russian icing on the cake.

This legacy of Kenwright's has been the fear of so many of us over the years, but even I could never have guessed just how bad it was (is). Both he and Moshiri have been willing frontmen (duped or not?) to unscrupulous money men. The due diligence is laying bare the murkey past...

Everton Football Club — the gift that keeps on giving.

That is a serious haircut to be fair.

I give him no empathy at all as he swans off to a life of still fabulous opulence despite the odious "work" that created his still preposterous wealth in the first place.

I think it is only right, that the FCA come and take a really close look at our books and what the accountant has been getting up to.

The Friedkin Group did due diligence and now know what the risk is. When that risk is resolved, they can easily step right back in if the club has not been sold in the meantime to someone willing to take that risk.

You don't get to be worth $5.5B unless you play hardball and certainly don't go not worrying about the odd £200M. Rich businessmen get rich through tough business dealings. He has no sentimental attachment to us and will only buy us if it makes economic sense.

I think and hope that Kevin @171 calls it right because I have heard that the thing that has caused a lot of the problems (the stadium) is the only reason why people are genuinely interested in purchasing Everton right now.

I heard weeks ago that Moshiri approached investors he has now turned away a few times, and asked them if they were still interested because he was having problems with Friedkin, who was trying to move the goalposts (something that he did successfully when purchasing Roma).

So it's one of two things for me. When Moshiri approached these investors he was holding back this information about how it's not really a good time to buy Everton because of this 777 Partners court case; or they are using this as a guise now that The Friedkin Group, are not prepared to give him what was initially agreed.

Joe @169 makes it look like 777 Partners are not really a problem, but then James @172 makes it look like they are a very big problem.

Moshiri could have definitely sold Everton before he got in bed with 777 Partners but, other than deciding to build us a new stadium (something people will argue has also been an unmitigated disaster), I genuinely don't think he has got anything — and I mean fucking anything — right.

If Moshiri can find no suitable alternative, he will likely go back to Friedkin with a somewhat reduced demand and somehow with a solution to the 777 debacle. I can't see any alternative as administration would put the club at a major disadvantage for the upcoming season, which would risk relegation, just in time for the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock to open its doors.

Lots of good input on this thread, after the usual, here we go again negativity (which, to be fair, is understandable, considering all the crap we have all gone through).

We will almost certainly be tenants at the new ground. There's going to be a lot of work for someone to buy the ground, finish the stadium and then finalise an agreement for us to play there.

It's up there with the immortal “We've had some good times”!

The Cannes takeover collapsed at one stage. Here's hoping.

Leadenhall Capital Partners LLP launched their law suit against 777 and A-Cap on 6th May, and TGF were only granted exclusivity on 20th June. The basis of the suit was in the public domain before TFG made an offer for Everton. The claim that they found something unusual that made them change their mind is laughable.

I assume TGF tried to use the issue to a) try to leverage 777 and their lender A-Cap to reduce the loan to Everton (repayable by them as owners) or b) use it to try to renegotiate the deal with Moshiri. Once they got nowhere they announced they were withdrawing their bid - as they did in the acquisition of Roma.

To be honest, I am tired of American consortiums making bids then trying to drive down the terms of deal principles agreed with Moshiri. We need to move away from these nose-pickers to more credible bidders

Theres also complications with the 777 money that we all know about.

Doesn't make for an easy sale, I think we need a mega rich Arab who's not too concered about a odd £200m or legal battles.

What is it I'm not seeing?

The 777 complication provided an A1 opportunity for Mr Friedkin to play hardball!

James #172 provides some insight as to what possibly played out.

I want someone like John Textor saying the right things, rather than gung-ho billionaire Americans who act with impulsivity without engaging their brains.

I don't want Friedkin now. The Vici consortium, backed by at least 2 billionaires, led by Keith Harris, are considering coming back in, according to Paul Joyce.

I think the issue is that Friedkin, like any business owner, is after profit, not just income. Income of £100M pa is meaningless unless that actually delivers profit.

Presumably the financial mess any new owners inherit means that profit is anticipated someway down the line, rather than on arrival. So an additional £200M headache (and associated litigation) may well push break-even point and then the elusive profit even further into the distance.

They don't want to be paying a loan back which could possibly have been obtained illegally.

Apparently the interest on the 777 loans is astronomical — around 20% or maybe higher.

Whoever buys us will want to pay them off but negotiate the payment at a reduced amount but, because of 777's nefarious dealings and the ongoing court case, it's unclear who they owe the money to (it's either A-CAP or Leadenhall).

So we're stuck with a terrible loan (it's estimated that that loan is costing £1M a week to service) with nobody to negotiate a way out with.

Bill Kenwright's legacy…

100% correct.

Kenwright is the worst thing to impact the club since 1878.

Unless there is something in the contract that is, at least, disadvantageous to the borrower which in itself might be legally contentious, or 777 Partners still have an interest in buying the club or maintaining the debt.

But as a sole reason to not to push ahead, I can't see.

"Consortium led by former LA Dodgers general manager Kevin Malone considering whether to reignite interest in takeover of Everton. Complications surrounding the debt is the major concern," he wrote on Twitter. "Group trying to figure out how to deal with that."

Here we go again, it's the hope that kills you!

The provenance of the loan must be known and the fact that the money might have been acquired in a dubious manner has surely nothing to do with a prospective buyer (unless it's 777 Partners, of course).

How would The Friedkin Group risk tarnishing its reputation by legitimising a dodgy piece of business?

If there is a risk, then surely it's the same for all prospective buyers?

I don't believe building a new stadium as an idea is an unmitigated disaster per se, even if I personally find the commercial rationale a little bit stretched.

It is building it without putting in place sensible financing arrangements like for example Spurs did with their stadium.

Hence we are likely paying an average of 10% interest on loans of £700-800M, possibly more if the 20% rate on 777's money is true and that assumes Moshiri is receiving zero interest on his own substantial loan.

Spurs financed long-term at 2-3%. That changes the equation entirely.

Where we have been unlucky is Usmanov's funding drying up and Moshiri simply not having sufficient resources, hence us turning to loan sharks. Plus the big surge in inflation which I believe has sent costs ballooning well over what was originally envisaged. But even that would have been heavily mitigated by sensible long-term financing from the outset.

Hence the club is worth nothing like the sunk investment cost which must be over £1.5B by now and faces no realistic prospect of generating the net profits required to pay for the cost of that capital. Hence my point above, I doubt, as currently configured, we could be described as a going concern.

We all know Kenwright's legacy, we all know what a narcissistic charlatan he was. However, this narrative detracts from the real villain here, Moshiri.

He seems to get away from most of it because he has spent money. He's an absolute, lamentable disgrace and an embarrassment in my eyes. Utterly incompetent.

Usmanov is obviously on the very highest level imaginable and could therefore never have envisaged his tap getting turned off, but it fucking did, unfortunately for Everton.

A third party such Friedkin paying off the £200M to 777 Partners, under Insolvency (so presumably 777 is held on trust to dispose of assets for creditors and debtors), is not liable as he entered the transaction with 'good faith'.

Moshiri likely does not know 777 Partners may have allegedly committed fraud. A-CAP are the guarantors for 777 Partners. Are there allegations A-CAP are also fraudulent?

If not, presumably A-CAP want their money back, or do they want the millions in interest attached to it to continue… and then is there compound interest on top?

777 Partners' insolvency position, seems likely had a charge on the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock as security. It's negligent to offer £200M in loans without security. I don't care what reputable media reported to the contrary at the time! Is it a floating charge that deals with stadium completion and being in business?

777 Partners' insolvency wants the market prices for any assets that they can prove were purchased in good faith. Criminal proceedings take precedence over civil, but paying for the loan does not impede criminal investigation. It's not a murder.

We are in the mess we are in because of two people's actions. Neither will be forgiven or forgotten. Each are both to blame for our situation. One would not have happened without the other, the mess we are in is directly due to their actions, individually and in tandem.

So legacy is something we are left with, something we have to pay for. It's down to both, equally and jointly culpable.

It might not be as bad as what some of us might think. It may be that Friedkin for PR reasons just walked away and another comes in and just pays 777 Partners, whatever is left of it, or A-CAP.

Whether we get the stadium after this latest blow is anyone's guess. The club has gone down the pan since the rat got his slimey hands on the club. 😡

However, the war in Ukraine is really what changed everything at Everton; once again, never a level playing field!!

Great question. I put an update on the Share Auction thread:

Everton FC Share Auction

Bidders may try it on with our debt but players are coming in. Players are being sold for large amounts. Our manager has experience with a low budget.

Our owner is a billionaire. Letting the club go under is not in his best interest.

Keep the faith. It will be okay!!

Not perfect by any stretch, but it seems to help keep the charlatans, crooks and vanity buyers out of the equation — and doesn't ultimately seem to diminish the quality on the pitch either.

Sounds like the 777 legal case and ramifications may take a while to play out. How do we get past that?

I guess we either wait and find the ways to finance day-to-day operations, remaining cash tight. Or we find a buyer with a different outlook on the 777 legal risk, and maybe deeper pockets than Friedkin. The latter would be preferable, please God pick the right people.

These court cases can take years. I doubt any sensible person would actually try to buy us at the moment with these cases ongoing.

It's going to be a long bumpy ride…

What is so bad about being a ‘vanity' project? Isn't it essentially the same motivation as the fans; wanting something of yours to be something all others are envious of?

Top pick has to be free-spending genuine fan with endless funds and brilliant business acumen. Second pick is anyone who is free-spending with endless funds and brilliant business acumen, ahead of genuine fan(s) with limited funds or no business acumen.

I also doubt that it was this risk assessment by The Friedkin Group that led them to pull out. More likely it was a negotiating tactic they used to try to leverage 777 Partners and A-Cap or Moshiri. Other potential bidders will take a different view.

We should move away from American consortiums making bids then trying to alter the deal terms based on “concerns” that were in plain sight when they made their offer.

They have wasted enough of our time.

And obvious thanks to Paul the Esk as well.

Criminal Proceeds Act.

It just gets worse, doesn't it? This man is like a suicidal kamikaze pilot who has hijacked a plane full of passengers. If he goes, so do the passengers.

Arsenal were right not to let him and the Russian have a controlling share at 51%. They knew his money comes from the Russian and no one knows where the Russian gets his money from, are his companies there to launder money?

What are the odds of the following being a coincidence? An accountant to a Russian super billionaire, whose money and assets are frozen, and that accountant transpires as the very Moshiri who is made also into a billionaire that purchases Everton and then holds Everton at gunpoint.

Friedkin comes in and sees the link to 777 Partners and potentially corporate fraud, and may be something even worse. Why would you, if you're Friedkin, offer to buy Everton, desire to get the takeover done quickly, and not do what he did, pull out and surprise everyone at Everton, if not for something serious?

How hard would it have been to look into Moshiri, who has links to Usmanov, the Russian super billionaire, and whose money, and it's not too remote to suggest this, could be linked to a Russian type mafia and criminal proceeds?

Was it just because of the Ukraine war that the UK state has frozen Moshiri's assets? How come the Premier League test didn't protect us from Usmanov and Moshiri?

It has to be cheaper than continuing to pay 20% interest on a $200M loan.

Friedkin pulled out of buying Roma in the June, but completed the deal in the August at a reduced price. Friedkin is used to putting a gun to someone's head to get stronger terms. You don't become a multi-billionaire by paying the asking price. You do it by getting something on the cheap.

My question is why would you go through the effort of paying off Bell, MSP, Downing etc prior to understanding the 777 Partners issue? It doesn't make full sense that you would lend that level of money without near 100% conviction you're going to complete the deal. Why did he not complete the due diligence, and then repay those loans? That doesn't make sense.

What is the issue with the 777 loan? Is it that neither Moshiri nor Friedkin feel that they should pay them the £200M? Or they're arguing who gets that value?

Or are either side seeing this as a gift from the gods that they can low-ball pennies in the pound and get away with not repaying a sum lent in good faith? If that's the case, that's pretty shitty and it's putting our club into no-man's land that leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. Yes, it's business, but still…

Or is it that there is genuine concern that the loan has come from fraud, and it's unclear who needs to be repaid? Again that's a 777 Partners and A-CAP problem. I don't see why that would hold up a takeover of Everton.

Everton need to repay the company that lent them the money or the administrator that's looking after 777 Partners. If Everton have been lent money from a lender that is bent, that sounds like an FCA or police issue on their part, not ours.

Or is it something else connected to the Russian, Moshiri, or other shady things going on?

Incredibly disappointing that our club continues to be put through this. It's been badly run for decades. Millions squandered on debt servicing, no board to mention, a weak squad, and missing out on commercial activities that see us fall further behind.

In this case, it would relate to the potential for American Law enforcement to pursue Everton for association with 777 loan monies obtained through criminality.

Problem here is that it gets harder to insure when the likelihood of the event becomes more probable. The fact that legal cases have been brought against 777 Partners and Everton are in possession of 777 Partners' monies increases the risk and makes insuring harder.

As Steve @232 says, this may all be a smokescreen. It may be a negotiating position, but a bit of a risk given there are known alternative bidders. The Friedkin Group do present as a ‘clean brand' — quite risk-averse.

Big deals like this often encounter problems and walking away is a common tactic to get concessions from the other side. It will be an interesting week for sure and maybe Lyndon will write a book about it all when it's finished? I'd buy it!!

Everton will be fine and is still a great buy despite another takeover collapse

He's very complimentary about us, which is great to see. However, given the bad press and associated court cases for 777 Partners, it's easy to see why this could be a risk for new owners.

Are they a big spanner in the works of any potential buyout now? Or is The Freidkin Group just extra cautious?

At least now we know it's not just how much money a potential has, they need to be willing to pay for the mistakes that Moshiri has made; he doesn't seem to want to budge on his price.

Let's hope for our sake and his bank balance we stay up until he gets a buyer.

Is this true?

Friedkin may have tested them for a haircut but it seems that would not be allowed under the injunction. Any funds for 777 Partners may be required to settle this case and, if 777 Partners are under water, a fiduciary will take over handling all assets to be liquidated.

777 Partners are tied up in court proceedings and the source of their funds and statements of their financial position are under scrutiny.

Meanwhile, Everton are paying high interest on the £200M and it can't be resolved anytime soon. Who would buy a pig in a poke?

I am fairly certain a creditor cannot be trapped in a scenario where they can't repay a debt.

The scenario is more likely that they're playing it out to see how cheaply they can repay the sum when the loan book is sold on at a discount.

I've seen Rights & Media Funding still have charges on Everton the club. And I've seen charges removed off Bell & Downing to I think Friedkin, but nothing by 777 Partners on Everton stadium.

That tells me 777 Partners must have a charge over Moshiri's personal Everton shares, rather than entity assets, or they've not registered with Companies House? Could be wrong.

The only way a deal happens is if a nation-state with unlimited resources buys us, clears the deck, and gives him something.

That's not happening.

All of us have seen various lawsuits over the last 2 years against 777 Partners accusing them of fraud, kidnapping and worse. Is it reasonable to believe Moshiri had no inkling that he was taking money that was likely stolen, embezzled, misappropriated or defrauded from someone else?

I would say “No” because we've been talking about that on here for 18 months plus Josimar, Paul the Esk etc, so the risk is Everton could be implicated in knowingly or otherwise benefiting from crime.

1. He is incompetent given a failure of any due diligence into the prospective buyer's funding arrangements.

2. He was being instructed to proceed by his Russian friend who had a vested interest in the process we are unaware of.

3. His backing (backer) had dried up since 2022 and he had no interest in the club other than its real estate value. He had no intention of using his money to sustain the club or protect it from financial failure.

We can probably dismiss option 2 but frankly we don't know because it's certainly the case that, when his backer went, so did he.

We have no idea as to his motivation to even consider 777 Partners other than "What's in it for me?" As a result, it has probably cost him his total investment in the club.

A way out for him is to actually stay in the game and fund the club until we are in the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock, the business with 777 Partners is concluded, and a buyer for a majority share found. His only option to possibly recover any of his monies is a longer-term view and sell the rest of his shares in 3 years time.

Given the quality of his decision making so far, it isn't likely.. but I just cannot understand the logic in just getting out. He owns nearly all the shares in the club, he has access to money, or even personal loans... but, was he ever in charge in the first place?

We will never know; all we do know is he is done with us...

It makes no sense. We the humble masses could see that 777 Partners were shysters. Moshiri — a qualified accountant and billionaire — could not?

I don't buy Jerome's conspiracy theory that 777 Partners were a front for Usmanov because — working in finance in the US myself — good luck trying to break sanctions and send money to Russia.

But, at the same time, Moshiri's behavior defies all logic.

To have such huge debt is a risk for him but I suppose it's a case of who blinks first: he is banking on lenders realising they will get less with administration and so looking for them to take a haircut — and so far, they're not budging.

Surely the significant thing about 777 Partners is that, whilst they worked in areas of business that are to most sensibilities ‘shabby', they were / are technically ‘business people' and not out-and-out criminals (individual convictions discounted).

Surely Moshiri only became a billionaire because he was happy to work with those in the murky margins of legitimate business (which are likely to offer high risk, high reward)?

As long as they could keep the other plates spinning, 777 Partners may have been able to putatively offer Moshiri more than others would as the Premier League broadcasting revenue might have been key to an ongoing ‘game' of pass the financial parcel and hope the music never stops.

The loan money dried up when A-CAP pulled the plug, at that point the music stopped for good and no one got the parcel (unless you count Everton as having got the last of it).

The Premier League is a cash cow, and its real money, high liquidity — to the likes of 777 Partners, that was gold. Alas the plates started to fall... crashing to the ground and now the forensic money chase is on.

Moshiri must have been on a promise — it must have been a good one too because he backed them when common sense (and an exclusivity contract) should have told him to ask more questions…

If £200M is a problem when trying to buy a big Premier League club, I think it's for the best.

Most people can grasp it can't simply be about the amount owed and it's the potential legal complexity / shit-show to come that is the red flag.

John W (235), you are many years behind if you are suggesting the authorities didn't realise Moshiri was just the Usmanov frontman. USM Finch Farm ring any bells?

The whole point about Usmanov and other oligarchs is that it isn't necessarily true they are or were actually engaged in criminal operations to net their fabulous wealth. They could really simply be the extremely fortunate few who got to share in the carve-up of Russia's bountiful natural resources when capitalism arrived post-USSR.

So it's reasonable to say that Usmanov's money is now tainted (sanctioned) solely because of his links with or support of Putin without going down the rabbit-hole of possible links to the Russian mafia (although the two may not be mutually exclusive).

All commercial loan agreements contain repayment clauses. Moshiri and / or Friedkin Group can pay the principal of the loan and pending interest back at any time to the lender i.e. 777 Partners. It is then for the civil courts in the US to decide who keeps the money.

Thanks for that clarification. Good to hammer home the very important distinction between civil and criminal court cases.

Kieran @253 claims:

All of us [?] have seen various lawsuits over the last 2 years [???] against 777 Partners accusing them of fraud, kidnapping and worse. [Emphais added] — none of them to my knowledge involving criminal proceedings, as Steve states.

So, if we can finally drop all this 'criminality' stuff as a complete red herring… What exactly is the risk incurred by the debt to 777 Partners that has spooked The Friedkin Group?

Maybe, if he decided to support the business and employ knowledgeable football professionals, the new stadium will enhance the value of the club and he could sell in a few years recouping a lot more of his investment?

So, I've written to Moshiri and informed him he and / or others can lodge the £200M due to 777 Partners with me until all this business with the courts gets sorted out. This should establish an honest broker for all parties and eliminate any further prospect of chicanery.

I just first have to clear it with my parole officer and open an offshore bank account. Bermuda sounds nice. Let's face it, the summer is shot.

Though it is a civil case, if found in favour of the lender, it can throw up evidence that could bring the parties to the attention of regulators, who may take action, especially if the parties are under investigation by regulatory authorities.

If 777 Partners have borrowed £200M from A-CAP and then lent it to Everton FC, then the debt is to 777 Partners. If Friedkin agreed to re-pay this loan at a discount — let us go for 25%, then he pays 777 Partners £150M.

However, 777 Partners would still be in for £200M to A-CAP. If A-CAP refused to budge, then 777 Partners would have to find £50M from somewhere, somewhere they haven't got and cannot find due to their current credit rating.

Whilst A-CAP are technically a 3rd party, I would not be surprised if Friedkin had not talked to A-CAP and asked for a reduction but they have said No as they are owed £200M by 777 Partners and why should they agree to a reduction? It is not their problem.

So Friedkin has to either pay 100% of the money to 777 Partners to clear the debt to A-Cap... or walk away.

Friedkin, like most successful businessmen, was hoping to get a bargain and has stepped back when it dawned on him that it's not as simple as 777 Partners giving a discount due to the ongoing legal action.

I wonder if Moshiri will walk away with nothing provided Friedkin settles the debt??

Makes me almost wish I was still working!!

Back in 2009, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the international anti-financial crime standard-setter, warned that the proceeds of criminal activities could be funnelled through financial transactions including the purchase of clubs, the transfer of players, betting activities, image rights, and sponsorship and marketing arrangements.

The money that Everton owe is just a drop in the ocean compared to the vast amounts from criminal activity circulating the world's money markets everyday. The fact that we got in bed with a Russian oligarch and his accountant enabled all of this bad stuff to happen.

Now unfortunately Moshiri, because of his dubious connections has wasted the best part of a year trying to facilitate another dodgy organisation — 777 Partners — to become Everton's new owners and as a result, due diligence has unearthed more worrying dealings.

Where there's big money, it's more than likely tainted by crime.

I concur with recent posters, whilst Leadenhall case is civil, if criminal wrongdoings are proven, then likely, given the scale, criminal proceedings will follow.

It's not entirely clear who we owe the £200M to. 777 Partners provided the funds, A-CAP are claiming rights over 777 Partners assets, Leadenhall seem to be claiming rights over both.

I understood there was a court injunction essentially freezing such assets. The court ruling will hopefully determine who owns what and provide clarity, then potential for negotiation.

The legal case, the claims on assets, the injunction, were all known when Friedkin entered due diligence. They would have known that, if they wanted a reduction in this loan value, then they would have to wait until this unravelled. Unless Moshiri had made promises to them he cannot honour.

So something in here has deterred Friedkin and it's not clear as to what. I too remain puzzled as to why Moshiri clung to 777 Partners... there's more to this.

In the meantime, we have to finance normal day-to-day operations plus stadium fit out. Recent cash injections help, only those closer to cash flow understand our room for manoeuvre. It can't be much, we can expect limited player incomings (loans, wheeling and dealing) and perhaps more player sales.

We can probably expect another Premier League PSR assault based around challenge of stadium interest payments.

We will once again all need to be behind our team and manager, with a stretched, limited squad. The new Everton Stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock beckons… ownership will be resolve… whilst there are grey skies, blue ones lie ahead.

And The Athletic most recently plus journalist Matt Slater this weekend both said this could involve Everton under The Proceeds of Crime Act.

Why did Moshiri stick with 777 Partners? The dog in the street knew about 777 Partners and their connections.

Why did The Friedkin Group not pay off the £200M loan? They found out something???

I do think that lenders would have to take a haircut in any necessary corporate restructuring.This has been always the case.

Sure, there are complications in the 777 Partners Loan connection, but due process would follow. That brings us back to what additional information did The Friedkin Group come across?

Regulators tend to sit back and allow due process take place before acting. They would even prefer due process to take place and not surface.

Prospective investors will want to know the outcome of 777 Partners' future from their legal cases and the nearer we get to BMD, the sooner they will start to receive a better return on investment.

It could be as long as another 12 months. Everton will be seen as a great investment with the asset of BMD and a strong fan base and basis of a great global brand, with some success in the near future possible with investment.

I would expect the race to buy us to get very (never red!!!) hot in the next 6 months completed in 12 months. lmMoshiri looking for maximum cash out.

No doubt there is some paperwork implicating Moshiri (the club) and this is why Friedkin asked for indemnity insurance which to me is perfectly reasonable and would cost far less than the 20% interest on the loan accruing.

Really don't know why Moshiri would have refused this as he is likely to take more of a bath now it's in the public domain and there will be further lawyers and agents costs incurred negotiating with other parties.

Or maybe Moshiri was just an idiot who wasn't used to dealing with people with principles.

Watch this space.

Some of the theories on here are right out of the Warren commission, the Watergate hearings and the 9/11 investigation.

Where's our John Dean?

Thanks for that information. I still think that the murky world of Russian Oligarch money, which is out there awash looking for a home, will emerge as a source of funds, which many unexplainable investors as a front for.

The investigations are in their infancy, but The Friedkin Group during due diligence got a whiff of the smell of corruption.

The fact that the source of 777 Partners funds leads to the secretive off shore tax haven of Bermuda means that information will only arise in plea bargain deals as investigators get their teeth into those involved.

I have often found when things come out in the wash, the absurdity and how simple it all was becomes apparent. But in the case of Everton I expect it to really take the biscuit

The Friedkin Group was the last chance to sort things out for regulatory authorities and proved unresolvable, forced by investigations into the reinsurance derivatives market in the USA. To take out indemnity insurance could be an admission of involvement and may end up void anyway.

Moshiri is the frontman set up as a billionaire he always was. Wander was similar. The whole lot are part of one gigantic global money-laundering machine which, thanks to Kenwright and Green, Everton were introduced into. R&MF, by their associations, are of interest as well.

Hopefully Everton will play better in the coming season, as we all observe the sideshow that is unresolvable until the regulators act and someone picks up the pieces.

I hopefully will be able to visit the participants in jail.

His forecast is incredibly bleak, perhaps in business for unknowns there are no hypothetical considerations. His knowledge on law is quite embarrassing.

Judges make rational decisions and keeping people in jobs in commercial enterprises is at the forefront as, without the economy there are no judges or attorneys.

A i'm commercial entity entering into a transaction with clean hands or in good faith, is not going to be prosecuted under the US Criminal Proceedings Act.

There is an issue of jurisdiction, does the USA have jurisdiction or the England and Wales (The UK): 1) case law will determine that; 2) not anybody can appeal.

The issues he raises are potentially fraud by proceeds. It would take Everton's barrister to liaise with USA judge and Attorney for A-CAP/ 777 Partners and the Applicant, that has the burden of proof for alleged fraud as this is a civil matter currently, on preliminary issue of indirect liability of Everton FC Co Ltd.

If not, is there any issue of Everton being liable for prosecution?

Public interest: is there A-CAP/ 777 have.

Statutory Defence, something along the lines of "reasonable excuse" Issue of jurisdiction again, does the USA have jurisdiction for prosecution of Everton in England and Wales jurisdiction?

The Esk should stick to finances and business, not law. Some of us have LLB after our name and do legal shit.

It's fucking awful — overly muddled on the home page, it feels as chaotic as Everton itself.

Do not recommend, 3 stars.

As I suspected it is merely a temporary injunction "preliminary injunction."

Draft Order:

It is Ordered:

"Upon Everton football club receiving information that either implicates this entity by way of loan and value at circa £200 million (or USA equivalent) to 777 directly and or ACAP indirectly and insofar as relevancy to current preliminary injunction awarded to third party in terms of the issue brought as alleged fraud;

A Case Management Hearing is schedule at 25 August 2024 to hear preliminary issues for the benefit of Everton insomuch as consideration for remoteness and or extent of Everton Football club in terms of any liability, if any.

The parties shall discuss those preliminary issues in advocates meeting scheduled 2 hours prior to arrival at CMH. Attorney for third party shall be the leading Counsel and Counsel for Everton and Attorney for A-CAP as Respondent/s. Counsel for Everton requires judge's discretion as appears for this motion as Litigant In Person or Everton may instruct the state qualified attorney.

His Honour Judge Macintosh. 22 July 2024." (Seal in due course).

Debtors in America resolve issues like this on a daily basis. If The Friedkin Group do not know who to settle the debt with, they could simply deposit funds in the registry of the court.

Furthermore, since it appears that 777 Partners' fraudulent shenanigans cost the sale, Moshiri should consider bringing a claim against them in Federal Court.

Is there something you know that the rest of us don't know?

It looks to me like Friedkin doesn't want to pay £200M and is trying to get it reduced.

Methinks thou doth protest too much...

A billionaire like Friedkin is at the same level (Equality of Arms) as the billionaires in the US, and his own lawyers could draft an order for the judge who granted the plaintiff a temporary injunction.

I think, like Christine says, it's just an excuse. It sounds terrifying the way The Esk in his usual doom and gloom is also here in absentia of any balance whatsoever (and wonders why he upsets our fans), for how he has presented the current situation.

The reality the loan is a liability of the club, plus costs, regardless of who owns or buys Everton, a convenient 'fact' overlooked.

Regardless of the outcome of A-CAP/777 litigation this point, and the clauses within the agreement of which Everton are a party will not change.

My biggest fear originally was whether Moshiri would be willing to write off his shareholder loans, which appears to be the case.

And as Paul @290 alludes and Christine @291 follow up — in my view this is simply gamesmanship on price, and they were chancing their arm with the offer of a haircut payment to the facility, why would either A-CAP or 777 indulge this, and more, which Director in their right mind would accept this unless Everton was going to the wall, which it isn't, as it is sitting on huge real estate, close to completion, and a going concern business in the Premier League.

There will always be another idiot willing to buy Everton, the problem is finding the most stable idiot with the deepest pockets ;)

COYB

Regardless of legal issues that money could be placed in Escrow pending resolution of the actions pending and our sale could continue with all sorts of caveats in place to protect the absence of involvement by Friedkin in anything dodgy.

The simplest logic is usually the right logic, that's why I called it in my post @ 200.

"Again, 777, A-Cap and their principals deny any wrongdoing, but serious allegations have been made by Leadenhall — and others in separate cases. 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.

The Friedkin Group was certainly concerned about this and talked to Moshiri's lawyers about indemnity insurance — but it is very difficult to indemnify anyone against something as open-ended as a POCA liability, even if Moshiri was minded to do it. And he was not."

But that money didn't just stay at Everton, the club passed it on to people like Mason Holgate. So can we negotiate a deal whereby he goes to prison as the sacrificial lamb for taking his share of alleged "proceeds of crime"?

Maybe we can get Rafa, Barrett-Baxendale etc too with their payoffs.

"A billionaire like Friedkin is at the same level (Equality of Arms) as the billionaires in the US, and his own lawyers could draft an order for the judge who granted the plaintiff a temporary injunction."

Where did Quinn say Friedkin couldn't do that? The legal matter of fact is that Friedkin chose to not do this. He walked.

(On that, our situation is not at all like Roma's when Friedkin negotiated buying that club. The only similarity is Friedkin himself.)

There was nothing "doom and gloom" in what Quinn wrote. His post was a slightly, and only slightly, deeper dive than Lyndon's OP on the exact same topic.

"and wonders why he upsets our fans"

"our fans"?? Who would that be? You and 4-5 other ToffeeWebbers?

You're spokesman for exactly one individual. That's it.

I have nothing personally against The Esk. I just have an issue with some parts of his opinions.

The average person who knows nothing about law is likely to listen to Paul's opinion, which is materially different from a fact, and feel Everton do not have a resolution.

Nothing doom and gloom, you say! I suggest you define for us your interpretation of doom and gloom. I would define it as information that is not balanced.

Put it this way: I didn't finish listening to all of his podcast. When Paul started talking about law, that he clearly knows not too much about, it was then I thought, "This is just foundationless opinion and depressing for our fans."

Whilst Andy and George, his apparent critical opposers, seemed to embrace Paul's views on the legal matters as fact and notwithstanding depressing, before then non sequitur going on to discuss why the new stadium cannot be sold and or exchanging views on the suggestion to stay at Goodison instead of going into administration…

That was my cue to leave. I was thinking, "Well those two are no match to challenge Paul on his dystopian forecast for Everton's future."

If that is correct, then the interest losses that have been reported on 777 are hugely exaggerated, and are at least not an issue of being trapped paying huge interest sums whilst the legal process resolves itself.

Other good news, it sounds like Leicester are going to get hit with a points deductionfor PSR breaches. Plus City and Chelsea to clear. Could be important as we are 4th favourite to go down.

4th favourites. Quite happy if we finish 4th from bottom, providing that is because nobody can catch us with 6 games to go.

I'm off to watch re-runs of old matches on YouTube, well it works for me!

This too shall pass, tomorrow is another day. Keep the faith fellow Toffees!

How they got the money which they loaned you is immaterial to you, if you believed and had no reason not to, that the funds where theirs to give to you.

Due diligence on the company loaning you the money should / would have been done by Moshiri and, although he may not have been impressed by their activities and media reports, it's not enough to raise a doubt such as proceeds from crime.

I have been through a similar situation in Australia with a company who loaned a third party I was involved in (a takeover) who was later found to have links with a convicted criminal. The court found that the loan was agreed to in good faith and therefore the receiving company could not have known exactly where any monies originated.

Long winded I know but bottom line, I do not believe there was any reason for Moshiri to take out an indemnity policy at a significant cost for something he would be unlikely to be even accused of let alone held responsible for.

In the Esk's podcast transcript, he also mentions that the loan came through Rights & Media Funding... why they were involved does send up a red flag for me. It would indicate that the funds were (partly) provided by someone who wanted to remain anonymous. No one seems to have asked that question yet...

I do not think for a moment that they have sat on the sidelines whilst 777 Partners tried to buy the club. They blocked the MSP deal because it wasn't in their interests; why did they not believe the same with 777 Partners? Unless of course they have a vested interest in the vehicle that was 777 Partners, which appears they did…

To me, by far the biggest issue with selling the club is and always has been this company. They have had their teeth into us since James Grant, Kenwright, Green and Co… and because of whatever control they have over the club, are making their unknown investors a mint.

The real deal will happen when they are shunted out of the picture, but you can bet your boots that will only happen with a significant amount of kicking and screaming.

The initial loan from R&MF was taken out by Kenwright, though the Bank of China loan proposal had lower interest rates. This was because they were' friends' (with Moshiri's approval), according to Kenwright, as was reported at that time.

Michael Tabor, the contact in R&MF that Kenwright dealt with, is based in Monaco and was introduced to Kenwright by Philip Green, advisor to Moshiri, another Monaco resident.

Once 777 Partners came into favour, replacing MSP Sports Capital, all other suitors were shut out.

You are spot on. I remember a brief discussion with Paul the Esk, when he was in full-on 'stop 777' mode, that this was all well and good but that R&MF were the underlying problem. 777 was always likely to blow up all by itself... thankfully before they got hold of our club.

The longer-term drain on our resources leaching the club dry, as well as impediment to progress and new ownership, is this stinking legacy of Kenwright that appears little more than a front for these unnamed people to slowly kill our club.

Where there is no transparency and lots of money, then in my experience, it is usually the home of criminals, fraudsters, and/or tax and sanctions dodgers. There appears to be no transparency with R&MF... allegedly.

They are the root cause of so much of this and the cancer we most need to expunge from our club.

Strangely, if you look at Companies House and who has/had a charge over Goodison, it's changed many times in the last 10 years alone. Lenders include Barclays, Santander, ICBC and Metro Bank and latterly R&MF, since 2020.

We seem to have been constantly refinancing our position until around 2020. It would be interesting to know who actually gets the interest on this loan but, as it's offshore, we'll likely never find out. I highly suspect zero tax is being paid on the income.

We ultimately owe three 3rd-party lenders around £200M each. That's going to be a massive cost burden on the club with total annual interest in the tens of millions. The main thing is for us not to go down — so the Sky money can keep the show on the road.

How the debt is eventually paid down is a long long road… if it ever is.

Friedkin will come back. If he knows the LA Dodgers' manager-led consortium are going to put a bid in, Dan will realise his impulsivity in making a bid for Everton then a few weeks later, he pulls out.

Ref: criminal case of proceeds. This law is to catch criminals benefitting when are not the principal or aiding and abeting. Everton are not criminals… though the way we play under Dyche — that could be criminal sometimes — notwithstanding the way Moshiri makes his decisions is criminal.

Criminal law always has defences in the Act (USA Code). I wouldn't give the third party a penny if 777 Partners collapses. The third party suing 777 Partners has the burden of proof of fraud. There is just a temporary injunction which is normal for interim security in cases like this.

There is potential for a criminal action against 777 Partners, and the temporary injunction involves Everton because of 777 assets — the £200M loan. So it's messy, but the position will crystallise.

It was good to hear that the 777 loan is interest-free till 2026, the loan will either be repaid or renegotiated when clarity emerges from the current legal action.

An interest-free loan, unsecured, to an insolvent business, doesn't sound too bad to me, though we do (and always did) need to be well away from anything to do with 777 Partners.

The R&MF debt remains a mystery, this debt does have rights, and needs resolution.

All of the conjecture on this thread results from Friedkin walking away, not surprising given it is the basis of the article.

If it the case that the legal issues and the ‘unresolvable issues around specific debts' are red herrings, then Friedkin walked because he couldn't get the deal he wanted, wouldn't honour the heads of terms agreed, and messed us around. A hard-nosed businessman or another messer we don't need?

It is good that some of the more responsible media sources are talking up multiple interested parties for Everton again. We simply have to find the right future owners; unfortunately, we are largely dependent on Moshiri to do this.

Equity will replace some debt, some debt may be retained with responsible lenders at commercial interest rates. A normal business model.

It's the complete lack of transparency that frustrates, and the hope that kills you.

"An interest-free loan, unsecured, to an insolvent business, doesn't sound too bad to me, though we do (and always did) need to be well away from anything 777 Partners".

Yes, asking a man about to fall off a cliff for a loan of a tenner ("Pay you back at the bottom") might turn out to be asute or lucky. I guess lucky.

I can't imagine a scenario where we simply get £200M for free. Also, even if the loan is interest free to 2026, what's the rate then? If it's high, then any new owner will need to refinance or pay it off within the next 18 months or so.

I don't think we will end up with a £200M gift, we will have to repay some or all of it, but I do think our negotiating hand is probably improved.

Brent@310,

My comment was a little tongue-in-cheek. It wouldn't sit too well if we were the beneficiaries when a lot of people at Bonza Airlines had lost their jobs.

All the above does make me more inclined to think the Friedkin walk was just a negotiating tactic. With several other potential buyers, he may have played his hand a bit early.

£50M in the bank for Onana at least, so that will keep the money men happy in the interim and stadium payments on track.

No, Chelsea and Man City are not dealt with yet. You can get 16/1 on Man City being relegated, Chelsea longer.

Makes you laugh that the Premier League are still pursuing capitalised interest charges, yet Chelsea — who have signed 38 players in the last 18 months, over a £1B on players —have sold hotels and the women's team to themselves.

Who is getting the sporting advantage on the pitch?

An insolvent business has an administrator appointed. They act on behalf of the people who are owed money by the company in liquidation. They will ask all debtors to re-pay 100% of what is owed. Why should they take less? If they do, they are not acting in the best interest of the company's creditors not their debtors.

Are you suggesting that a debtor like Everton FC will be told, "Yeah, you can only afford $50M of the $200M, so we will take that"? No. it will be "You owe $200M, we want $200M — and if that means you need to go and borrow $150M from somewhere to do that, then off you go and come back with the whole $200m".

To some extent, the longer 777 Partners stay solvent the better. I know insolvency takes a while but, as soon as they fold and creditors want their money back, then that is when we will have to pay the $200m.

You don't want to be paying the loan off to 777 Partners or A-Cap in case Leadenhall win the case, so surely this money could be put aside until it eventually needs to be paid to whoever wins the civil court case?

The bigger concern is R&MF who are allegedly owed £225M, with an interest rate of 10.25%, so getting rid of these charlatans first seems more important to whoever wants to purchase Everton than anything else right now, unless I've read it wrong.

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

Indicative figures only. 5-year lease at £100 per month. 18 months in and asked for a early termination amount. 42 months sill run. £4,200. Not one cent discount for paying early. I was expecting £3,700-£3,800.

So we may find that we save not one penny and therefore for cash flow it will be better to keep paying monthly.

Anyway, last time we lease anything. I put a stop to that. Why pay 8% when it leaves money in the bank earning 2% (this was a year or two back).

Was all that devotion to our club just the act of an actor? Such a pity he wasn't 'spared' to suffer with us.

He wanted to get rid of Martinez (as did we all) and he wanted a Hollywood Manager in Koeman.

Who wanted a DoF and got Walsh, a glorified chief scout?

His man Koeman signed 2 x #10s while the previous owner went all luvvy bringing back "the boy".

Who panicked and got rid of Koeman? Who brought in Sam and approved purchase of Walcott (ex Arsenal)?
Who wanted Marco Silva and tapped him up?

Who got rid of Marco Silva?
Who wanted another ex Arsenal player in Iwobi?
Who appointed Carlo and bowed to his whim of players?
Who appointed the Fat Spanish Waiter?

Probably get a load of vitriol because most of this is the cause of our issues. Previous owner stood by Davy for 11 seasons but since the new owner were on 8 plus two caretakers and having to get rid of players the new guy didn't want. Keane and Holgate were given new contracts under Carlo of all people.

I am sure someone will point out one error (other than Rooney) so saying it is all BPB's fault.

Everton Back in Crisis

When I read this on my 'phone it was accessible but on my computer appears to be behind a paywall.

It says something about another interested party only offering Moshiri £400M but I'm not sure if they meant Malone or Vici.

On the basis that such people exist, I expect Trump to be re-elected, dead or alive.

Don, I see normal US tit-for-tat politics has resumed. The Democrat lady has labelled Trump a criminal with him calling her extreme left! I don't think there's such a thing over there. They all tend to be fairly right or centre unlike ours.

Back on subject, I think Moshiri has a few months and needs to accept an offer. But like all of us, I'm just reading speculation. If it's true he's been offered £400M, then just take it.

It's like this, notwithstanding The Esk's bleak outlook: Moshiri will have to find a way to get around the £200M incriminating situation caused by the jesters 777 Partners, or Everton go bust.

Moshiri's interest in Everton is in the long term. Moshiri will get a few hundred million of his money back in a few years time. We will get a take over or Moshiri will have no choice to take control and keep Everton afloat.

He has ploughed £600M into Everton, so those saying he should walk away are just playing to the crowd. He could get the loans restructured himself, or a consortium like MSP could come in to structure the millions in debt, and interest on top of that.

As he mentioned, compare the price of Premier League clubs today compared to 10 years ago… and imagine what the price those same clubs will be in 10 years time?!? Bearing that in mind, someone who buys Everton now will be getting it at a very good price.

What did strike a chord was his mention of Qatar now looking to invest in a Premier League club now that the multi-club ownership rules have relaxed.

There is no injunction protecting the £200M that implicates Everton to 777 Partners.

The third party suing 777 and A-CAP in the alleged fraud have, as I understand it, just a temporary injunction (preliminary injunction), meaning standard interim security to protect the third party. This injunction probably prevents 777 Partners or A-CAP trading, an insolvency situation notwithstanding.

Now the third party has the burden of proof to prove 777 Partners has committed fraud in this civil matter. Remember this is currently a civil matter and ergo not at this time criminal proceedings.

Now law gets complex when it turns to criminal law and or equity. Criminal law applies to the evidence of fraud, if proven, to the US criminal courts standard, and equity here means rights beyond strict legal rights, such as legal ownership (title by deed) which is the same as saying discretion, not law.

Any claim against Everton for the £200M, either Proceeds of Crime Act, designed to stop criminals getting around the law where not principal or aiding and abetting.

Criminal law generally requires criminal act (actus reus) and criminal intent (mens rea) and chain of causation, linking Everton to criminal proceeds. The state had the burden of proof.

Notwithstanding criminal law requires Guilty Beyond Reasonable Doubt and equivalent to Presumption of Innocence, passing public interest test, charging standard of reasonable prospect of conviction, and statutory defences such reasonable (the act).

If all of that is satisfied, the US state can claim the £200M or enter into agreement to pay it in lump sums and probably both agree to trust for the third party beneficiaries.

Then, alternatively, the Thirty Party if all of that is proven, can use that criminal evidence to take Everton to civil court and then have the burden of proof at the civil standard.

The issue is for equity is proving where Everton has mixed money with the third party's money, which one is which. Equity steps in, like where a trustee has spent trust money.

"We owe 777/ A-CAP. 777 are in the process of insolvency. We thus are a £200 million debt to insolvency, or are debtor indirectly. To use a legal term, we're a receivable. A debt is only as good as the ability of the debtor to pay. If it was a secured loan, the secured loan is to 777/ A-CAP. If 777 is dissolved, any money goes to what would be then a trust as the insolvency now hold 777/ estate on trust. The insolvency lawyers have the burden of proof that Everton owe £200 million for the creditors.

Friedkin could have said to the trust, nothing to do with me am a new owner. You may be owed by the old Everton. I come with clean hands and Mr Moshiri entered into a contract with 777 with clean hands.

Ref civil matter, there is only a temporary injunction. Why would you give 200 million to a third party? At best if there are several claimants such as stolen pension funds, there will be no individual claims and likely a discretion trust is set up. Discretion means at discretion of trustee. Discretionary trusts are used to avoid tax and avoid paying beneficiaries money. It best, it will be a compensation fund. Everton could set up a trust by way of long term payments rather than large lump sums.

The third party has the burden of proof also

Ref criminal matter, Criminal Proceeds Act:

The US state attorney has the burden of proof. Everton come with clean hands."

It's essentially 777 estate claimants, for the state, state government presumably, v third party claimants in the alleged fraud case.

The Insolvency via 777 estate, presuming it is dissolved, may have a claim to the new stadium, assuming those were security terms agreed with Everton. There is no strict right in terms of legal ownership so these claimants are essentially have beneficial interest/s, which is another term for equity right/ interest). If it's not worth suing it may be worth a claim against what property the person has by way of assets. So the insolvency has a beneficial interest to Everton's stadium. Or negotiate a smaller amount than the £200 million owed.

Or third parties in the alleged fraud case if successful could collectively hold similar beneficial interests to the stadium or deemed suing not worth it.

The Insolvency situation, it's not known if the same creditors in the alleged fraud case are the ones making 777 bankrupt. Assuming not, the insolvency lawyers have probably joined the alleged fraud against the estate of 777 as intervenors, not strictly a party to proceedings. In the latter situation, it's in the insolvency interest to deny evidence of fraud so the insolvency can take the meat from the bones and leave the carcass to the remaining claimants.

Now the secure creditor is normally a bank, so I don't know how Rights & Media Funding is a secured creditor, as they are not a bank. Security just means security like an equitable charge, not necessarily secured creditor therefore.

There is a world where Everton Football Club Co Ltd can sue Moshiri's Blue Haven Holdings. You can sue the company or the person independently as you can hold assets as a person or company independently.

By 'company', I mean legally incorporated such as limited company and registered. Moshiri as owner of a company has a duty to show reasonable conduct. The standard is at a hypothetical equivalent.

Everton FC Co Ltd could sue Moshiri's holding company or sue Moshiri individually it is cancelled prove Moshiri made his transactions with 777 in person. Moshiri has a nice yacht if a claim could be made against that or whatever Moshiri has by way of assets.

Everton FC Co Ltd could also sue for damages beyond the £200M and potentially make Moshiri bankrupt.

Some excellent and informative posts regarding things in which you are well versed.

In your opinion, was the Friedkin decision correct?

If so, where do you think other bidders could circumvent the obstacle that Friedkin saw?

It's more business than sport now. So sad.

Very interesting. But there has to be some basis in law that involved culpability on Moshiri's part? I mean, the club can't sue him just for being a twat and spending far too much money on awful players and managers… can it? There has to be 'standing' — or is that an American term?

What exactly has he done that could form the basis of a lawsuit by Everton FC Co Ltd? Yes, the fiduciary duty of a club Director to protect the investment of shareholders (er, he being the prime shareholder)… but not for any specific, crime, action or loss he personally perpetrated against the club. After all said and done… Moshiri himself is the one who has suffered the greatest loss here.

Lots of companies go to the wall and that's it, they're done. Is there any point in going after a director? They just walk away unless the authorities can pin some crime on them. Is there any sign of that in Everton's case? I don't think so.

It's not a crime, we all make many mistakes in hindsight.

As a blue of little brain, I need this broken down a little.

If I were to lend someone a fiver, and they were slow to pay it back, would there be a case for habeas corpus?

Who could be jailed, the lender or the borrower (neither be)? Would the same fiduciary rules apply if the loan was made in the USA? In dollars? In sterling? I think we should be told.

You write 'the secure creditor is normally a bank, so I don't know how Rights & Media Funding is a secured creditor, as they are not a bank'. My reading/experience is that any entity or person can be a secured creditor as explained by the statement below from UK.Gov guidance on secured creditors and finance agreements:

The concept of a creditor holding security, being a secured creditor, is an important one in insolvency as a secured creditor retains rights against the property of the insolvent which are not available to an unsecured creditor. In particular, the secured creditor retains rights to take possession of, and sell, such property of the insolvent against which his/her debt is secured, with his/her responsibility to the insolvency estate being limited to a requirement to pay over any surplus funds to the liquidator/trustee for the benefit of the estate following the sale of the secured asset.

Yes, you lent me £20 and I got you to write a piece of paper (legally attested) that, in the event of default, I could take your car, then I am a secured creditor. If all the paper said was I have lent you £20, then I am an unsecured creditor.

There is a hierarchy of creditors but tax I think comes at the top. Are there others? Oh yes, the insolvency practitioner. Then secured creditors, then unsecured creditors and down at the bottom are shareholders.

Hopefully this will be included on the Labour Party's new primary curriculum.

So a trust works by creating a trustee who has title only nominally and thus Everton could have put the new stadium on trust and backed up by deed (security) and liability insurance — on that, set it up so insurance pays for future liability.

It would mean Everton is protected from liability against the US state insolvency and other third parties in the alleged fraud case as the trustee(s) control the trust, no longer Everton.

Right now, Everton are vulnerable if those scenarios play out. Friedkin is impulsive. He with impulsivity paid £200M for exclusive rights with a view to buy Everton, but then a few legal situations come to the fore and he walked away. Who pays £200M and then just walks away?

Okay, Friedkin is secure as he is the new MSP in effect. If he didn't pay the £200M, I can understand him walking away. But still, the risk could have been mitigated by instrument as I have stated here.

I thus disagree for all those reasons and reasoning that Everton is not in an unresolvable situation, as opined by The Esk. No disrespect to Paul either. We all know the man is amazing at what he does. But law and commercial transactions law in particular is a different animal.

The club will have to pay that back to Friedkin with interest.

"I am not even a lawyer or an expert."

No offence but I'm assuming Friedkin employ both lawyers and experts so you really don't seem best placed to second guess them.

Perhaps I've missed something?

I understand tactics as I deal with Counsel for parties often and my job is to analyse what Counsel will do before it is done, and so by default, I to an extent, have acquired a tactical mind. I am more an advocate than I am a mere law graduate. No offense to law graduates either!

In any event, it is just my opinion which contrasts with Paul's opinion. I have a lot of respect for Paul but I will challenge his views on legal matters.

Ref Moshiri, yes I know it's a loan and earning interest, ie, similar to MSP. I just think putting £200M into a club knowing everything about Everton, I'd say the odds of him returning are relatively quite high.

MSP as I recall wanted to buy 25% of the club and 777 Partners wanted to buy the club and, had things played out the way they desired, that would have happened, and put us into an even worse mess with what has happened since.

MSP and 777 Partners were broadly equal in payments to Everton, circa £200M, and same with Friedkin. Friedkin, to return to the PR point, has to be seen to do the right thing morally; he for example is a philanthropist on the one hand, and a very successful businessman, perhaps more so.

He is also in the USA in his business interests, Toyota etc, and 777 Partners are also. Would you want to buy a Toyota from a supplier caught up in the 777 scandal? On paper it looks not exactly great. It's just a narrative though.

He thus to an extent has to maintain his reputation in terms of ethical considerations but, at the end of the day, he is a businessman. He would of course have to do some PR work on that front, if he were to come back to take over Everton.

If Friedkin does not return, and no other parties come in to buy Everton — and I think they will as it's simply not unresolvable, just technical — if anything, Moshiri will have no choice but to step in and preserve his interest in Everton, as his interest is in the longer term than the short.

But you have already conceded you are neither an expert nor a lawyer.

I rest my case.

I will be trying to concentrate on the football , which will hopefully be better than last season, though I do expect some type of points deduction. I just hope that financially they do better in the 2023-24 Financial Year.

They let things slip in the 2022-23 Financial Year on the previous year. They need to have addressed this trend.

I know more about pointless rules on bringing players in than I wanted to, known as PSR. I am not concerning myself with who comes in to take over Everton. Like you, I'll look to the new season and see what happens with everything else. Best advice, Jerome, you're right.

Brendan at 349, critique my posts, not me, come on now as I know ad hominem is a distraction (non sequitur) and well acquainted to the extent in my legal life, so to speak, I ignore a Machiavellian party using those type of tactics. What's the point?

At what point would I be an expert where currently I even appeal HHJ judges on case management decisions! I know more about human rights case law, and remind judges, than probably many lawyers even know exists.

I've always viewed ToffeeWeb as arguing with your mates in the pub.

No quarter asked etc

Apologies if I offended, it was not my intent.

Human rights eh? Respect

Although if you are agreeing with Jerome....

This does challenge whether they were ever interested in everton. Roma have been frustrated for years in building a new stadium, now all of a sudden they've money in place with jp Morgan and a stadium concept.

Have Everton been used to flush out the right deal with Rome authorities? Nothing would surprise..

Friedkin are In for £200M; The welders opinion is - people don't throw £200M away very often, everybody likes a bargin, but not many like over paying.

Also; If the desire and will is there - a way will always be found.

The days of Kenwrights fanciful...nobody's buying football clubs now...are long gone.

There are/were recently 3, 4, 5, 6? hats in the ring at one stage.

There's a deal to be made, there is a willing seller, willing buyers OK, it might be a convoluted, twisty, turny drawnout deal (this is Everton after all) to be made. But it's going g to happen.

In today's Royal Blue Podcast Ian Croll sits down with Business of Football Writer Dave Powell to broadly discuss the Everton takeover situation.

Excellent and understandable reason WHY Friedkin withdrew.

Which effectively means any hoped for takeover is not going to occur except by a crooked organisation similar to 777

That lot over the park did it with their previous owners. And so was Chelsea's owner.

In theory they are appointees on behalf of the 20 Premier League clubs to oversee its running and regulations.

They can't intervene in club affairs — no matter how poorly or badly it's run. All they have power to do is what they did with 777 Partners and, to be honest, they did us a massive service there. They utilised this:-

The Owners' and Directors' Test

This outlines requirements that would prohibit an individual from becoming an owner or director of a club. These include criminal convictions for a wide range of offences, a ban by a sporting or professional body, or breaches of certain key football regulations, such as match-fixing.

So they can and did demand certain proofs. One being that 777 Partners had the funds that they stated they had to take over and run Everton. Which, because of their crooked and nefarious dealings worldwide, they couldn't.

It's unlikely Moshiri is going to fall foul of the Premier League Test. Other than that, the Premier League can take clubs to task for regulation breaches like they did against Everton, Forest and now Leicester re PSR.

The biggest stumbling block for any imminent sale is the crooked loan bloody Moshiri took out from 777 Partners for which they are in court for in America. But that is only in civil court at present.

The loan 777 secured over there was based on the collateral they had and used by them on things unrelated to Everton. So when they used the same collateral to secure another loan from a different source, to loan £200m to Everton, they committed several civil and criminal offences in the USA.

The problem is that, no matter the outcome of those proceedings, by all accounts the Feds are waiting in the wings to jump in with criminal charges. So that one loan has the potential to prevent the sale of Everton for many years to come.

I believe the loan is for £200M. So why doesn't the prospective purchaser just pay that back to 777 Partners as part of the deal, I hear you ask… Well, they can't; here's why:

A court has to rule whose money it actually is and the legality of the second loan. So basically the Everton loan is log jammed in American civil court with a federal court action still a distinct possibility.

Then, the loan to us is tied up in caveats. All benefitting the 2nd loanee. (Not the ones taking 777 Partners to court to have our loan effectively declared unlawful.)

They (the 2nd loanee) set a huge interest repayment rate spread over a long term. It is not in their 'interest' (pun) to have it ended either by Everton defaulting to 777 Partners or by our sale. Thus allowing 777 Partners to repay both loans.

They are literally coining it in from 777 Partners. Then there are penalties for early repayments, so I understand. It's a mess.

Even if Friedkin bought Moshiri's shares, they couldn't shake the shackles of that loan and all the reservoir of shit likely to burst open upon them.

Couldn't whoever bought the club pay the £200 million into a bank account and let the courts decide who it belongs to?

As long as we pay it back, that should be the end of the matter.

By the time this is sorted, the war in Ukraine will be over, all sanctions will be lifted and you know who will end up owning the company as it was always meant to be.

I love a happy ending!

There are two loans for two amounts of money from two different loan companies secured on one set of collateral.

So its not the money for the second loan that matters intrinsically. It is the collateral.

For instance.

You own a property. It is worth £60,000.

You need cash for a car. You go to Loans-r-us and usingt the title deeds on the house borrow £20k for a car.

The loan is over 5 years and repayment is £500 a month.

You then start renting that car to a friend for £800 a month.

You are aware of a boat building company seeking a loan on favourable terms to build a ship.

They say if you loan them £30,000 over 3 years they will repay you £1,500 a month.

You don't have the money and go to Cash4rent.

Using the same title deeds on your property you secure a 2nd loan on them for £30,000 over 3 years repaying them £1,400 per month.

Loan company number 1 find out.

They don't want to recall the loan because financial times are hard and they are making good money.

But they are worried that they will lose their money if you default on loan number 2 and loan company number 2 seize your property.

Loan company number 2 do not want to recall the loan for the same reason and have the same concern.

Meantime loan company 1 goes to court to get a judgement about your shenanigans.

I hope that helps to explain better.

Also I do not know if the collateral 777 used is less than, equal to or greater than the total amount of money they borrowed.

Can't we appoint 3 Supreme Court justices to completely fudge any issues that may occur going forward?

Ref "secure creditor:"

The law as I understand it is in this order: banks (providing mortgages to buy homes) are 'secure creditors". The next in line are those who first registered land charges, not the one who has land charges.

Security is a concept in commercial transactions and can mean potentially anything from interim injunction, interim order, or security on land such as s mortgage (or by deed), or obligation to buy, in the football world.

Security can extend to a guarantor in the law of agency and guarantor to where a bank is made insolvent. Retention of title (RoT) clauses also may come into play where a supplier retains title on items where the manufacturer goes insolvent.

Imagine...

DB: "Hello, Debtbustets4U."
FM: "Hi, I'd like to consolidate my debt into one easy monthly payment."
DB: "Okay, how much do you owe?"
FM: "I think it's 300 — no. 400… hang on." [Shouts to someone in the office... "How much is it now?"] "Oh no, it's 500… But I'm paying over 20 a month back and can't afford it."
DB: "£20 a month is reasonable on £500."
FM: "No. £20M a month — and it's on £500M!"
DB: "Oh… you should have called us sooner. Why have you let it get so bad? Don't you have an accountant?"
FM: "I am an…"

Loans are recalled that can't be repaid when it's off to HM Official Receiver. Then everyone involved goes under and gets next to squat back. That's one of the reasons Moshiri loaned loaned loaned and 777 Partners lent lent lent.

It is in no one's interest to go cleavage up.

I'm not sure if they used false or forged ones for the first as well.

Question to him, I believe, "is Friedkin Group still in background?"

Myers: "They definitely are, whether they re-kindle the sale is another matter: ....some clarity in next 2 weeks." — Dated 26 July 2024.

John W. ...et al 777/ACap present no real obstacle to a takeover rather it's simply a negotiating tactic by Friedkin

Martin F...the 777/ACap situation raises serious if not insurmountable problems.

Scratches head...again!

We know that the fate of the £200M 777 Partners loan ownership is to be determined in a New York South Distriict Courtroom.

I completely concur with your comments. What is crazy is that you (understandably) felt a need to apologise on here for your views on Moshiri.

The reason why you are so convinced this is a "controversial" opinion is because of the longstanding obsession on TW for blaming Kenwright for everything.

As I alluded to earlier in this thread, anti-Moshiri doesn't necessarily mean pro-Kenwright; some however are unable to separate that. Don will be thrashing around in his bed tonight in response to this, muttering Bill's name.

Bill made huge errors, Bill clung on narcissistically to something he should have let go of. Bill lied through his arse and was no doubt a master manipulator. However, if anyone thinks he wanted Moshiri to come in and fuck this up as spectacularly as he did, then they are deluded.

For all of Bill's faults, he loved Everton, and I don't believe he would have wanted a lot of the Moshiri-based decisions to have taken place. It is widely considered that many of our problems at board level where underpinned by their polarised views. As you rightly point out Phil, we at least had stability under Bill's tenure.

Moshiri is a reckless child, an incompetent fool who took outrageous risks and made awful unilateral decisions at the expense of our beautiful club. It amazes me he hasn't been run out of town, effigies of him burning in the street.

He is very much to blame for this mess, the 777 debacle, and pretty much everything bad that has happened since he came into power.

Fuck off, Moshiri, you are an embarrassment.

Part of Moshiri's legacy will be a great new stadium in a great location but the getting there has nearly destroyed the club.
Everything he has touched, indeed forced upon Everton, has simply been a catalogue of huge errors.

Well intentioned, no doubt, but incredibly stupid and naive.

The point you're raising refers to jurisdiction, which means 'right to hear a case.' I think juris is Latin for law. Juris and diction together means hear law. Jurisdiction includes right to bring a case and right to hear a case on law or fact. Jurisdiction for USA and the UK are very different. The USA is an emanation of England, now the UK since (Union 1700s). The UK has three jurisdictions, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. USA Court for Criminal Proceeds Act (POCA) would start with issue of jurisdiction. It would look at relevant UK and USA cases in criminal law to see if the USA is competent to hear matters. If that passes, it has to answer if there if there is evidence to charge Moshiri and or Friedkin. The consideration here is whether Moshiri (and or Friedkin) have done anything wrong. The issue is where the criminal situation happens or is known about after the event of the alleged fraud for POCA. Friedkin for example where entered into a contract with Moshiri to buy Everton would be made in good faith and for Moshiri one cannot predict the future of alleged fraud. Moshiri would have to answer as he made transactions with 777 and Due Diligence would have raised some interesting questions in terms of the root of the money to pay for the 200m loan. Friedkin is different as he is not remotely to blame as for POCA he purchases from Moshiri in good faith. It is not an offense to purchase Everton that includes 200 million of itself that may be linked to criminal activity. It's not a straight open and shut case of intending to buy stolen goods. Theft for example is intention to permanently deprive the owner (title) of his/ her goods. POCA is designed to extend theft law, such as fraud, or taking paying without paying (eating, restaurant, filling up petrol); here POCA, is to cover gap between theft and accessory (aid and abettor). Criminal law as such a grey area - it's not a case of right or wrong or black and white (ie obvious or not obvious). There is also loss of commercial opportunity just owing to arbitrary criminal proceedings on technicalities. It is a risk of incrimination for Friedkin as technically he could be seen to have had 'criminal proceeds' if taken in the literal black and white reading of POCA and if USA state prosecution proves case against Friedkin. Perhaps POCA convictions would seem more likely to be in situations where the Defendant intends to either permanently deprived or benefit by paying much less for stolen goods. So this would fall under a test for is what is called criminal intention (mens rea, ie guilty mind). For Friedkin, probably though would be considered very unlikely for him to be seen as doing anything wrong as he merely transferred Everton club and new stadium build from Moshiri. The 200m loan from Moshiri to 777 is was already done prior to his arrival. If anyone is liable to prosecution it is Moshiri, not Friedkin. For Friedkin, even the possibility, not likelihood, or probability of being prosecuted was just a bridge too far. That was the case. If he wants Everton, he will take Everton and take the slim risk of criminal liability.

Losing the Roma owner is a massive disappointment. Who knows which vultures will end up picking up the reigns???

"The case was found very simply by inputting into Google, "USA ACAP fraud injunction case."

As I suspected it is merely a temporary injunction "preliminary injunction."

Others on TW may want to look up the case.

I found this, which is the lesser serious offence of proceeds from laundering, here:

18 US Code §1957 — Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity

I can't find any USA law with that POCA title.

Firstly he was ripped off by 'football experts' who turned out to know not a lot. He gave them plenty of money for players but we ended up no better or not as good as previous seasons.

Then he had Everton's biggest fan dealing with who knows what, that was definitely a mistake but how was he to know.

We don't even know if Moshiri was indeed pulling the strings or even now who has the last word.

When it was decided to build a new stadium and then Usmanov was effectively banished, Moshiri was left up the creek without a paddle. Thats my take on it, but who knows what the truth really is.

Whoever owned the club, the cost to build a stadium which had to happen sometime would be prohibitive and would almost certainly restrict the amount of money spent on players.

Intent of criminal activity is enough:

A dodgy accountant, or clerk, cannot say "I am just an accountant" where sending money or setting up fake companies for money laundering.

The only partial defence is £200M did not fund all the transaction as just part. But then they could go to the money laundering law.

I think Moshiri, if anyone, would be the one that they would go after as he had a due diligence duty to look into 777 Partners and A-CAP, not Friedkin. Moshiri however can say he did not know as he won't know if he doesn't look, whereas Friedkin can't.

Moshiri probably knew as he was accountant for the Russian, and made into a billionaire. So technically Friedkin could have intent but not Moshiri. But cause it falls under Racketeering and Racketeering requires dishonesty, the defence could be Friedkin was not dishonest.

Either way because it's racketeering what 777 Partners and A-CAP have allegedly done and Friedkin technically would continue racketeering, he would say he has done the right thing. What a mess.

Cases spread over states become federal. They have a type of POCA but I think might tend to use RICO instead… but I really am not sure on that. I looked up your suggestion and its financial fraud / corporate fraud. And lots of reading.

If 777 Partners had used other collateral, this would not now be a huge STOP sign for the more honest investor. But they have and it's likely to drag on. Especially because 777's Ponzi type world is slowly unravelling.

Brendan @ 374, it really is a massive problem.

Friedkin wanted the loanee to take a haircut on that loan so they would get money back but not what they would running the loan to its maturity.

Sadly they wont. It is worth too much. Until it isn't if 777 Partners have their assets frozen or taken by the US court.
Then we would have a complex trial over here regarding ownership of the new stadium because of loan defaulting.

Moshiri really is a dickhead. Accountant at Deloitte & Touche? My arse! At Toilet & Brush perhaps…

I know each state has a USA Constitution framework that links all it's laws under various Chapters Titles and part of that Title for proceeds is either Instrument Laundering or the lesser offence. The Title is under Racketeering.

I helped win a case years ago where one party lived in a different USA state to the court order in the other. So whilst not an expert on USA law, I am familiar. If there is a POCA law itself I cannot find it. I used to use West law (now Thompson Reuter) databases for USA materials.

For those who swallowed the line from the Friedkin Group that they walked away from the takeover because of the legal uncertainties relating to the £200 million loan to 777, the district judge in the lawsuit between Leadenhall and 777/A-Cap has stated that the loan can be repaid AT ANY TIME.

As I said from the day the deal collapsed, Friedkin just wanted to get the club and the cheap, including 777/A-Cap or their creditor Leadenhall taking a haircut on the loan. When they didn't get agreement to that, they backed away.

“ When The Friedkin Group pulled out of talks with Everton owner Farhad Moshiri to buy the Premier League club, the two parties issued a joint statement saying they had agreed “to explore alternative options”, without explaining why the deal had collapsed.

For that, we needed off-the-record briefings, “you might think that but I couldn't possibly comment” and all the usual nudges and winks journalists rely on to make sense of 167-word statements on club websites that pose more questions than they answer. It is a confusing process, more art than science, and sometimes we misinterpret the signs and end up in the wrong place.

For example, it quickly became an established fact that The Friedkin Group got cold feet because of legal uncertainties surrounding the £200million ($260m at current rates) that former Everton suitor 777 Partners has lent to the club over the last year. That bid failed to receive Premier League approval and the Miami-based firm is now in quasi-administration, while 777 and its long-term backer A-Cap are embroiled in a $600million lawsuit with a London-based firm called Leadenhall, which believes it is the rightful owner of 777's assets, including the loan to Everton.

It is a complicated situation, so it is hardly surprising that some commentators have boiled this down to saying the takeover collapsed because Leadenhall blocked it — an explanation that neither The Friedkin Group nor Moshiri objected to, as it suggests they are collateral damage in somebody else's squabble.

It is a nice theory, but it is not true. The reality of the Leadenhall-related obstacle is far more concerning for Everton's future.

Leadenhall's case against 777 is that the latter borrowed money from the firm secured on assets in its portfolio of companies, but 777 had also been borrowing money from A-Cap using the same security. This is known as double-pledging and Leadenhall also alleges that A-Cap was complicit in the fraud. 777 and A-Cap deny any wrongdoing.

Opportunities to settle the case have come and gone, but a district court judge in New York has granted Leadenhall a “preliminary injunction” over 777's assets to make sure any money that comes back to 777, which is now under A-Cap's control, is available to all of its creditors and is not moved to somewhere they cannot get it.

The injunction is not meant to stop 777/A-Cap from running its various businesses or even selling them. So, there is no reason why 777/A-Cap cannot agree to Everton's sale or enter into negotiations with a new Everton owner over full or — more likely — partial repayment of that debt.

In fact, the judge, John G Koeltl, made this clear earlier this month when lawyers for 777/A-Cap tried to argue the injunction was too restrictive.

“If there is a transaction out there that can be justified, all you have to do is to bring the transaction to the light of day and argue that it's perfectly fine, that it is not part of an asset-stripping transaction, that the plaintiffs and the intervenors are not hurt by that, that it's not self-dealing on behalf of any of the individual parties,” said Koeltl.

Leadenhall would surely like 777/A-Cap to bring in some cash, as it wants its money back. The idea it is blocking 777/A-Cap from doing a deal on the Everton loan has come as a surprise. So, what is really happening here?

Is it that Leadenhall will not accept a penny less than the £200million 777/A-Cap lent to Everton, or is it that 777/A-Cap need that £200million to sit on the balance sheet at full value and therefore cannot get into everyday business conversations about settling a bad debt?“

The narrative: a narrative is someone explaining an opinion or point of view that may not resemble the facts on material that may present as visual, audible or verbalised print (writing).

By way of analogy, The Ukraine War is presented by the West as The Russians as aggressors, owing to elephant in the room: "energy wars," Energy, 21st Century' (sic, USA' CFR (before 9/11): President...challenges.

Military: "Iraq, Libya as 'oil weapon' and of Russia, as 'weapon,' April 2001, see signaturees including former world banker, IMF). Venezuela recently overtook Saudia Arabia as having the most proven oil reserves. I said at the time. Watch this space.

A local analogy for the narrative, if this were Arsenal, and not Everton, the narrative by The Athletic et al would be entirely different:

'Friedkin appears to have walked away from a deal at this point. This owes to possible financial disagreement with Friedkin and Arsenal, and owning to the threat, although for a genuine businessman like Friedkin what is probably unlikely, benefitting from criminal proceeds. The situation as it is opens opportunities to purchase Arsenal. Arsenal is the 3rd successful club in terms of its history, has never been relegated from the top flight.' Narratives keep the media in jobs.

Let's assume A-CAP take over the rights to 777 Partners and for obvious reasons, they put a term in to protect their self. A-CAP shall be guarantor in the event 777 Partners cease business and or enter into insolvency. A-CAP in that eventuality shall gain control and hold retention of title (ROT clause) for all proven assets which A-CAP has the benefit thereof.'

Third Party Everton shall herein agree notwithstanding the commercial terms between inter alios 777 Partners and or where other parties come to the fore at a future date, a charge and with interest attached on land connected with Liverpool, England, known as 'Bramley-Moore Stadium."

My question: Did Moshiri agree to this?

Preliminary injunction, as I say, is just security for temporary remedy, ie, interim up to the final hearing. A court cannot stop a company from trading, as government (courts) cannot interfere in private business. I have not looked at the terms of this preliminary injunction but I can tell you this happens in many many cases every day.

"By way of analogy, The Ukraine War is presented by the West as The Russians as aggressors, owing to elephant in the room: "energy wars," Energy, 21st Century' (sic, USA' CFR (before 9/11): President...challenges.

military: "Iraq, Libya as 'oil weapon' and of Russia, as 'weapon,' April 2001, see signaturees including former world banker, IMF)"

Can you please put that into something coherent so we can understand the point?

Thought it was me just being thick!

Having read it again though it does appear to be a lot of words put together in no particular order.

Not maybe I'm afterall thick so.

(He started it).

The greatest western ever made, "The Wild Bunch" has been said to be an analogy for Vietnam. Buggered if I can see it myself
.

A recent report indicated Spurs were looking for investors to bid for a minority stake in the club. It was reckoned Spurs are worth around £3.5B - £3.75B. On that basis surely our club must be worth around £1.2B? That would cover the current loans and Moshiri's investment, I think.

You could probably purchase Everton, lock stock and Barrel for around £1.1B, which is something I have been led to believe the company who Keith Harris is working for have tried to do twice.

I would have swore blind that Arsenal had never been relegated nor won promotion, but apparently the fact that they were parachuted into the First Division, despite ending the 1915 season in fifth place of the Second Division, at the expense of their closest rivals Spurs in 1919, who had ended 1915 bottom of the First Division.

The First Division was expanded from 20 to 22 clubs following the resumption of league football, which had been suspended due to the First World War, is only one half of the equation, as indeed Woolwich Arsenal had been relegated in 1913.

Some fans see Woolwich Arsenal, formerly known as Royal Arsenal, and the club we recognise today as being two separate entities, but we'll leave that to the Gooners and Spuds to argue about.

Arsenal relegated?

It took them many decades to finally achieve their one season in the top flight after being robbed of promotion after finishing 3rd in the old 2nd Division. back in 2015.

Everton and Arsenal may have something in common, both seem to have been relegated because of world wars. Not during but before in the case of Arsenal and after, in the case of Everton.

John Wilson;

"By way of analogy, The Ukraine War is presented by the West as The Russians as aggressors, owing to elephant in the room: "energy wars," Energy, 21st Century' (sic, USA' CFR (before 9/11): President...challenges.

military: "Iraq, Libya as 'oil weapon' and of Russia, as 'weapon,' April 2001, see signaturees including former world banker, IMF)"

Can you please put that into something coherent so we can understand the point?"

So energy is what — oil, gas etc. An energy war is thus wars for business reasons reliant on energy. There are energy shortages and so the oil has to come from somewhere.

Oil, gas, etc is what the North American continent (USA, Mexico and Canada) and Europe together did not have, well 'not have' relative to around its then circa 20 billion barrels of oil, where Iraq was recorded as having 115 billion barrels of oil in consecutive years when the IMF was supervising Iraq.

The IMF is the International Monetary Fund which is based in the USA and linked to the World Bank. The IMF forced loans on Iraq and privatised its oil which was previously subsidised.

IMF cut its public welfare which left many schools like building shelters and forced loans to the World Bank. The latter provides loans to third world countries and the bombings made it third world.

It did this by taking control of Iraq after bombing it, which was before hanging its "oil weapon" leader, Sadam Hussein at The Hague on live TV.

Hussein did not want to sell his oil to the USA. The media narrative in the UK was "He has Weapons of Mass Destruction and can produce in 24 hours," something like that.

No, the West needed to control Hussein's oil, and Libya was bombed in 2011. It put in place voting but the voted-in government was under pressure to make savage welfare cuts, and pretty much agree to what the IMF wanted or wants.

When all of this was happening, it reminded me of that Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) publication, Energy in the 21st Century (sic, April 2001) that I came across a few years after 9/11.

The Ukraine is the new energy enemy, the West now want Russia's oil and gas. I said "Watch this space" in terms of Venezuela. There will be coups there or a civil war or funding coup and the raison d'etre will be also its vast oil supply and or later privatised. Libya will be the same, oil privatised and assets sold off to IMF-related or controlled companies.

Nearly everything in the UK has been gradually privatised and it's the same with South American countries. If we really had UK ownership of our utility companies, why are we paying an incredible amount? Why do you think your energy has shot up and your food so expensive? If you say "Brexit". I'll say, "Oh dear".

We'll derail this thread into midsummer musings if I reply in full but based on your reference to 'the Ukraine' and numerous poor turns of phrase I think you've got your information from a pretty dubious source or some kind of chatbot.

Nevermind, as you were.

As Peter, said you're both in danger of derailing the thread.
Read the room!

Everton earned their promotions — both of them!

Now I haven't even been following Venezuela. I just knew it was vulnerable. Like Saddam Hussein, Afghanistan Taliban, Milosevich (former Yugoslavia). The common denominator is country assets and a CIA narrative that makes those countries vulnerable to the potential of USA foreign policy narratives: 'rogue' - enemy - bad guys - harbourers of terrorists." A bully in school is no different to a bullying CIA, bullying countries. Why do Heads of state seem to have heart attacks or the plane or helicopter crashes in suspicious circumstances?

Too deep? I don't think so at all, I think it's a very (to quote Baldrick) "cunning plan" leaving the door open to let Moshiri sweat and get desperate. Why else would he loan £200M to the club? He has a say on what happens with respect to any new owner.

John, yes my counsel did win the case, they sat down the day before it went to the Supreme Court and settled. Sometimes the pen (or paintbrush) is mightier than the sword.

I think Friedkin will come back. He has £200 million invested. He wants Everton, Roma haven't got a spade in the ground for where they ideally would want a stadium. The criminal liability matter is just unlikely to happen, as stated earlier, Friedkin is a businessman, not a criminal. It's also quite difficult to prove which part of the £200 million from A-CAP is criminal proceeds from other money that is not criminal, assuming ACAP are proven to be fraudulent. If that money is deemed fraudulent it means the contract is likely

to be void and that means the numbers disappear off ACAP bank account for Everton debt for that £200 million. That would be the situation in Contract law. Laundered money is theft and therefore does not exist in contract. For fraud the remedy is just enrichment, a claim for the money and or what the tort feasor (person sued) has or holds. Again, it will be a case of proving what part of the money Everton have from that £200 million owed to 777 Partners and then ACAP, and of mixed money in bank accounts, what part is Everton Football Club's (legal personality) and what part is Ledenhall's/ other third party.

I too don't think we've seen the last of Friedkin. If I was a betting person (I'm not), I would imagine him doing exactly what he did with Roma. Walked away, only to come back.

Walking away means that the people making up B now have to agree who is going to take the discount. At which point, when B is equal or less than A, then Friedkin will be back, having achieved what he wanted.

https://www.thestadiumbusiness.com/2024/07/24/roma-presents-plans-for-new-stadium-2/

I haven't been on TW in a bit, and came back to this thread.

I'd have dinner with John in a nano-second. I think I could chat with him for hours on end.

Brian, it might be zzzzzz for you, but not for me. Fascinating posts and a fascinating brain that Mr. Wilson in my book.