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

Fulham requires big funding from owner

After lengthy delays, Fulham’s shiny, new Riverside Stand has finally opened, creating “a unique Thameside destination with first class facilities for supporters and partners on match days, as well as for the wider community year-round”. This ambitious project has increased Craven Cottage’s capacity by around 4,000 to 29,600, while it has also taken advantage of the club’s fantastic location and wealthy catchment area by including two Michelin star restaurants, a rooftop swimming pool, corporate hospitality and event space, all benefiting from views of the Thames. Chief executive Alistair Mackintosh observed, “Fulham is the sort of club that can have a business class or first class and have fans that turn left on a plane.” Indeed, there is also an exclusive members club – with a football season ticket as an optional extra. It’s fair to say that “the times they are a-changing”, as this is a long way from the traditional pie and a pint. However, in a world where clubs face the tw...
Post a Comment
Read more

Threat of financial calamity removed from Baggies

West Bromwich Albion had effectively been in decline ever since the club was sold to a Chinese consortium in August 2016, paying a figure north of £200m to buy former owner Jeremy Peace’s stake. Controlling shareholder Guochuan Lai’s ownership was fairly disastrous for the club, but his unloved tenure finally came to an end after Bilkul Football WBA, a company ultimately owned by Florida-based entrepreneur Shilen Patel and his father Dr Kiran Patel, acquired an 87.8% shareholding in West Bromwich Albion Group Limited, the parent company of West Bromwich Albion Football Club. This change in ownership was urgently required, due to the numerous financial problems facing West Brom, including growing high-interest debt and serious cash flow concerns, following years of no investment from the former owner. Indeed, West Brom’s auditors had already rung the alarm bell in the 2021/22 accounts when they cast doubt on the club’s ability to continue as a going concern without making player s...
1 comment
Read more

A poor financial record, but new hope at Everton

I recently saw an amusing video online in which a group of Everton fans were rebuked in jest for being hopeful.  Football fans in general tend to swing between excessive optimism and excessive pessimism, but for many it seems that moaning is in their bloodstream (Spurs fans probably take the trophy).  However, Everton fans have had plenty to moan about on and off the pitch.   Let’s hope that a new era is about to begin for this grand old club. Everton’s 2023/24 financial results covered a fairly momentous season, when they ended up 15th in the Premier League, though they would finished three places higher if they had not received an 8-point deduction for breaching the Premier League’s Profitability and Sustainability Regulations (PSR). It was a worrying time for Everton fans, as the club faced a “perfect storm” of issues, including large financial losses, an ever increasing debt burden, a challenging stadium build and the tortuous sale of the club. There were eve...
Post a Comment
Read more