Owners

Remove this Banner Ad

moomba said:
Sorry, but you seem desperate to have a go at me for some reason. I'm trying to avoid stuff like that on here.
Click to expand...

I was actually discussing the topic until your 'ok cool' condescending response. If you're truly trying to 'avoid stuff like that' on here then there were plenty of other ways to admit you had nothing further to add to the discussion including just not replying.
 
SM said:
I was actually discussing the topic until your 'ok cool' condescending response. If you're truly trying to 'avoid stuff like that' on here then there were plenty of other ways to admit you had nothing further to add to the discussion including just not replying.
Click to expand...
Sorry.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Zidane98 said:
.

Everything ok mate? You seem a little wound up recently.
Click to expand...
Not sure if I'm allowed to reply or stay silent. These new BF rules are confusing as anything, ha ha.
 
moomba said:
Incidentally, if 777 is buying 90 odd percent of Everton, who owns the rest?

Kenwright?

Think it would probably be good for them to see the back of him too.
Click to expand...

Just on this the sale is still subject to regulatory approval. So it may still not even go through. Kenwright is from the old school of owners. He's from the old school of football club owners born & brought up in Liverpool Everton through and through. Doesn't have the financial capacity to compete, similar to the Moores family who simply could not compete financially with the likes of Chelsea & Utd in the mid 00s. Think it would be prudent for Kenwright to also move on if the ownership deal goes through.


777 partners have been in the press as they have not repaid a loan taken out to buy Hertha Berlin shares.



Just on the Melbourne Victory ownership structure so far they have taken a share of 19.9% with an agreement to eventually take a 70% share in the club for an agreed fee. There is an issue in that a large shareholder in MVFC is the estate of Metricon Homes owner Mario Biasiin who died unexpectedly last year which will take time to resolve in terms of probate etc.


I may add that there have been protests from Hertha & Standard Liege fans over 777 ownership.


As someone with inside knowledge at MVFC I can say I don't yet have total confidence in 777 as owners. My biggest concern is their leveraging. They have airlines they operate and are rapidly expanding. There is a potential for a Hicks & Gillet type scenario where 777 end up using Everton as leverage for financing their other investments which would suck big time as an Everton fan.

Hicks & Gillet tried to use our club name to further their investments and didn't care less even if that meant implications for the club. I wouldn't wish that scenario even on Everton.
 
Bojan KantKick said:






Sharks in the water...
Click to expand...



Speaking to insiders there are some shareholders that don't want to see 777 convert its options to own a 70% share of the club at MVFC. They also cannot get their hands on Mario Biasin's estate owned shares for legal reasons.


I imagine 777 will possibly threaten to withdraw their Bonza sponsorship in the event that they cannot get the shares they are trading. That's fine by me, I hope they don't get their hands on more than the current 19.9% they own. So far they have provided little capital to the club anyway.


I see they are loaning Everton capital to get them on the hook.........
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Zidane98 said:
glenferry23 777 founders (one of which is John Wander who is now on the European Club Association board) made a fortune in structured settlements. You got any knowledge of what that is?
Click to expand...

It’s seems mostly active in the legal industry. A defendant in a lawsuit rather than paying out damages in one transaction, would then stagger the payment into instalments over a period of time. Presumably firms like 777 would take their clip via commission and fees to facilitate it. Much like an afterpay style arrangement.
 
glenferry23 said:
It’s seems mostly active in the legal industry. A defendant in a lawsuit rather than paying out damages in one transaction, would then stagger the payment into instalments over a period of time. Presumably firms like 777 would take their clip via commission and fees to facilitate it. Much like an afterpay style arrangement.
Click to expand...

Ah I get it. 777's companies buy annuities that are guaranteed at a knock down rate.

Say person a is a 20 year old injured permanently in a car accident through no fault of their own.

They receive 2 million dollars over 30 years paid as an annuity. So 66k a year.

These vultures buy that guaranteed annuity for 1.3 million off the victim preying on their desperation to need instant cash. Then 777 receives the annuity payment long term meaning they profit 700k off person A's misery.

So theyve probably got plenty of cash guaranteed long term and are able to leverage that buying airlines, sports clubs etc. They probably onsell those annuities themselves too.
 
Anyone read up with whats happening with Scunny again.

Okay, lets see if I can summarise it in 100 words or less.

Old Owner was a gambler and a giant turd. We nearly died. "David Hilton" saves us in Jan, pays off debt but doesn't buy ground. The old owner is now trying to kick us out of the ground and sell it. That is in court...

David has been convicted of fraud. Has had 3 names in the past. That was early 2010's and he was in jail for 2 years. Knew an article was being written about him about this conviction by the Athletic. He stopped propping up the club and stopped paying pension payments as he didn't know what was happening. Old players complained on social media about that and another winding-up order. We are still in crap creek.

The article is out. Not friendly reading.

theathletic.com

Investigation: The football club owner with four names believed to have been convicted of fraud

David Hilton cleared a six-figure tax bill and pledged to take Scampaignerhorpe back to the EFL, but his suitability to be owner is under scrutiny
theathletic.com theathletic.com

David Hiltons Respone.

(change the t and n around. Big footy does not like the word unt with a c

Despite all that, Im am more inclined to have faith in David Hilton than not. we were gone in Jan without intervention. The issue is the Peter Swann, now and always. If Hilton wanted to do a "hit job" on a club, he picked the wrong club. He didnt even get the best parts of the club. A small section of our fanbase has never trusted him, from day dot. No idea why but they have been outright hostile. David could have solved world peace and they still would have had it in for him.

We are still alive and kicking. That is the most important thing. And we are not sucking on the football pitch....
 
BobbyMorri said:
Anyone read up with whats happening with Scunny again.

Okay, lets see if I can summarise it in 100 words or less.

Old Owner was a gambler and a giant turd. We nearly died. "David Hilton" saves us in Jan, pays off debt but doesn't buy ground. The old owner is now trying to kick us out of the ground and sell it. That is in court...

David has been convicted of fraud. Has had 3 names in the past. That was early 2010's and he was in jail for 2 years. Knew an article was being written about him about this conviction by the Athletic. He stopped propping up the club and stopped paying pension payments as he didn't know what was happening. Old players complained on social media about that and another winding-up order. We are still in crap creek.

The article is out. Not friendly reading.

theathletic.com

Investigation: The football club owner with four names believed to have been convicted of fraud

David Hilton cleared a six-figure tax bill and pledged to take Scampaignerhorpe back to the EFL, but his suitability to be owner is under scrutiny
theathletic.com theathletic.com

David Hiltons Respone.

(change the t and n around. Big footy does not like the word unt with a c

Despite all that, Im am more inclined to have faith in David Hilton than not. we were gone in Jan without intervention. The issue is the Peter Swann, now and always. If Hilton wanted to do a "hit job" on a club, he picked the wrong club. He didnt even get the best parts of the club. A small section of our fanbase has never trusted him, from day dot. No idea why but they have been outright hostile. David could have solved world peace and they still would have had it in for him.

We are still alive and kicking. That is the most important thing. And we are not sucking on the football pitch....
Click to expand...
That sucks but the Netflix series should be good.

Mike Ashley did the same thing to Wasps recently.
 
moomba said:
Are they?
Click to expand...

What legitimate reason can you offer for discussions between the Abu Dhabi government and the UK government about the impending charges against City?

The Premier League is not a government entity.

And we've heard many times from you that Mansour is just a private businessman who owns City - no different to any other owner.

Would you believe it appropriate if the US government intervened over charges against a club owned by a private US businessman?

The answer to all this is pretty obvious and highly concerning to the integrity of the game.
 
Zidane98 said:
What legitimate reason can you offer for discussions between the Abu Dhabi government and the UK government about the impending charges against City?
Click to expand...

I deleted my post, because I didnt really down this path ... again.

But the UK embassy isn't the Abu Dhabi government, its the UK government. And the discussions are between the UK embassy and a UK trade body (Foreign Commonwealth and Trade Office), neither of which have any role to play in any decision against us. But who both probably have an interest in trade implications of a case that implicates Mansour in fraud.

There may well be something more to the discussions, it may well have been prompted at the request of someone in Abu Dhabi. I suspect if Mansour wanted/wants to influence any decision involving Man City he probably has a few more direct ways of doing so.
 
moomba said:
I deleted my post, because I didnt really down this path ... again.

But the UK embassy isn't the Abu Dhabi government, its the UK government. And the discussions are between the UK embassy and a UK trade body (Foreign Commonwealth and Trade Office), neither of which have any role to play in any decision against us. But who both probably have an interest in trade implications of a case that implicates Mansour in fraud.

There may well be something more to the discussions, it may well have been prompted at the request of someone in Abu Dhabi. I suspect if Mansour wanted/wants to influence any decision involving Man City he probably has a few more direct ways of doing so.
Click to expand...

A lot of waffle while not addressing the question as to why the UK government should be discussing MCFC charges and why it should affect UAE-UK relations.
 
Zidane98 said:
A lot of waffle while not addressing the question as to why the UK government should be discussing MCFC charges and why it should affect UAE-UK relations.
Click to expand...
It's a presumption by you that there was any discussion about UAE-UK relations. And given you initially stated the discussion was between Abu Dhabi and UK governments I'm going to go ahead and guess that presumption is based on nothing more than what you really, really want to have happened.
 
moomba said:
It's a presumption by you that there was any discussion about UAE-UK relations. And given you initially stated the discussion was between Abu Dhabi and UK governments I'm going to go ahead and guess that presumption is based on nothing more than what you really, really want to have happened.
Click to expand...

Dodging the question again. Always your style.

Why would any UK government entity be discussing MCFC charges? Why would the UK embassy in Abu Dhabi be discussing it?

We would love to hear a legitimate reason for this considering your club is supposed to be owned by a private businessman playing in the PL which absolutely is not a UK government entity or even linked entity.

Let's forget about presumptions and address the question at hand.
 
Zidane98 said:
Dodging the question again. Always your style.

Why would any UK government entity be discussing MCFC charges? Why would the UK embassy in Abu Dhabi be discussing it?

We would love to hear a legitimate reason for this considering your club is supposed to be owned by a private businessman playing in the PL which absolutely is not a UK government entity or even linked entity.

Let's forget about presumptions and address the question at hand.
Click to expand...

I told you a reason why they might, it just wasnt the answer you wanted to hear.

In the wrong run I don't know what they talked about, I wasn't there.

Maybe the Athletic will push for FOI and we'll all find out one day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top