Skip to main content

Complicated situation at Everton

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.

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.

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?

 

 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

It's no deal say Spurs insiders over Taiwanese takeover

Senior figures at Tottenham Hotspur insisted on Friday that they had not been informed of any deal to sell Daniel Levy’s stake in the club. A business group, Eight Sports Capital — which is said to include a billionaire Taiwanese financier — claimed that it had an agreement in place to buy a 24.99 per cent stake in ENIC, the club’s majority owners, from Levy, who owns 29.88 per cent. The Times has been told Ng Wing Fai and Brooklyn Earick form part of the group, having both been linked previously to potential takeovers of the Premier League club. The Taiwanese businessman, Richard Tsai, is also said to be part of the consortium. He is reportedly worth £7 billion.  Last year Earick, the former DJ and tech entrepreneur, was part of an attempted £4.5 billion takeover, which was “unequivocally rejected” by Spurs.  An ENIC spokesperson said: “We can confirm that neither ENIC nor THFC are aware of any sale by Daniel Levy’s Family Trust of its minority stake in ENIC, THFC’...
Post a Comment
Read more

Reports about Charlton sale exaggerated

Reports have appeared in The Guardian and elsewhere that Charlton has been put up for sale. Richard Cawley is an authoritative local journalist who runs a South London Sport substack site.  He reached out to the club yesterday evening to ask for comment on The Guardian’s article. Early indications from the club have been that nothing has changed since the story about them seeking investment, except that it is now a different company doing it. Charlton have since managed to consolidate their place in the Championship, avoiding an instant return to League One, with their women’s side promoted to the WSL, returning to the top flight for the first time since 2007, although staying there is likely to be costly. It would be counter-intuitive for owners Global Football Partners not to progress the club when looking for investment, that the focus remains on driving it forward, that their spend this summer is in line with long-term planning and will see an increase in wages spent on players...
Post a Comment
Read more

Levy's anomalous status at Spurs

It is now nearly a year since Daniel Levy was dismissed as Tottenham Hotspur chairman by the Lewis family.  It has been 12 months of dramatic twists and turns, with Spurs avoiding relegation on the final day of the Premier League season, and then spending unprecedented sums this summer to try to make sure such a scare never happens again. But while most fans focus on the football — and a dubbing by Brentford   — another set of issues have been bubbling away separately. These relate to Levy’s continued position as a minority shareholder in the club. This has been in the news for much of this summer, even as we approach the first anniversary of Levy’s dismissal, and specifically this month, after he missed the opportunity last week to participate in the Lewis family’s latest equity injection into the club. On Thursday morning the club confirmed that his shareholding has been diluted, down by roughly two per cent, after the creation of new ENIC shares. Levy’s dism...
Post a Comment
Read more