Board/Owners Related Stuff

[StevO]

On 01/05/2024 at 10:15, Palfy said:

I read that wages were not going to be paid this month had 777 not put 16 million in at the death to once again keep us afloat, that would suggest to me that Moshiri is standing by his word that he is not prepared to put any more of his own money into the club. 

Where did you read this? 

[StevO]

Catching up. 
 

The club has many expenses to cover, and the salaries of the everyday employees is not a big one. They will be fine. 
If Moshiri stops paying people then his shares in the club really start to lose value, he’s not a good owner but he’s not a complete idiot. 
 

[Romey 1878]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/c4n14dzgkxpo

[Palfy]

45 minutes ago, StevO said:

Where did you read this? 

It was on google they send me articles that revolve around Everton, you could probably still find it, I will add to that that they also sent an article saying the club would have paid the wages had 777 money not arrived at the last minute. 
Either way depending on which article you care to believe in it’s not a great position for the club to be in, an owner who is adamant that he is not going to put any more of his own money into the club so looks to borrow more and more to fill the void his mismanagement has created. Then we have 777 potential buyers who can’t deliver because they don’t have the funds, yet Moshiri constantly champions them and has taken on over another 200 million of debt in the name of the club from 777 that has to be paid back with interest if this deal doesn’t get over the line. 
You maybe right Moshiri isn’t a silly man though  his running of this club would very much show the opposite, he’s a rich man who could easily afford to put the money in instead of shackling the club with more debt, imo instead of bankrolling the club he would be prepared to see the club go into administration in the summer to wipe off millions of pounds of debt, then get an insolvency firm to find a buyer and get as much of his money as possible back that way, that would be a better option for a clever man who knows that if he keeps putting hundreds of millions more of his own money in he stands to come out with less. 

[patto]

Why are g the he premier league still considering 777 they obviously are just going to have us bought on borrowed money it seems like a disaster waiting to happen 

[Newty82]

Any club...or business...being bought is with borrowed money. That's just business.

The whole business world works on borrowings and debt.

The concern is do 777 have the cash flow to keep us going while we build the stadium? Or, at least, have access to the cash needed.

That, I think, is the part the Premier League are trying to get 777 to prove.

I think most of the debt the club might be labelled as having, while scary as fuck to us 'normal' people, probs isn't too bad for the club....

Moshiris debt is interest free and paid back at a time to be agreed (I'm sure that's been stated?)

777 debt won't be debt, so long as they get the club

And a chunk of other debt is linked to a nice big shiny new stadium which, on paper, will prove a valuable asset to the business to offset a load of the debt on the accounts.

I think a spanner in the works for the football side of things is trying to balance PSR.

Non of its ideal. But...well...it's business unfortunately. I'm no expert and I won't pretend to know the facts, it's all too complicated for me...hence I view it in Laymans.

[patto]

1 hour ago, Newty82 said:

Any club...or business...being bought is with borrowed money. That's just business.

The whole business world works on borrowings and debt.

The concern is do 777 have the cash flow to keep us going while we build the stadium? Or, at least, have access to the cash needed.

That, I think, is the part the Premier League are trying to get 777 to prove.

I think most of the debt the club might be labelled as having, while scary as fuck to us 'normal' people, probs isn't too bad for the club....

Moshiris debt is interest free and paid back at a time to be agreed (I'm sure that's been stated?)

777 debt won't be debt, so long as they get the club

And a chunk of other debt is linked to a nice big shiny new stadium which, on paper, will prove a valuable asset to the business to offset a load of the debt on the accounts.

I think a spanner in the works for the football side of things is trying to balance PSR.

Non of its ideal. But...well...it's business unfortunately. I'm no expert and I won't pretend to know the facts, it's all too complicated for me...hence I view it in Laymans.

Very well put. 

[StevO]

I’m pretty sure all of our owners since the Moores family have bought us on borrowed money. 
Wealthy people don’t spend their own money, they spend someone else’s. 

[Palfy]

I get what everyone is saying that everything is built on debt and that’s the way of the world, but debt has to be paid back and as soon as you stop paying it back the people you owe the money to will call in their loans and that’s when you become insolvent, there’s a limit to any business where you’re debt becomes bigger than the business, and we seem to be flirting very closely to the debt being bigger than the club. 
You try borrowing 200k on a house valued at 170k you’ve got no chance 

[Newty82]

3 hours ago, Palfy said:

I get what everyone is saying that everything is built on debt and that’s the way of the world, but debt has to be paid back and as soon as you stop paying it back the people you owe the money to will call in their loans and that’s when you become insolvent, there’s a limit to any business where you’re debt becomes bigger than the business, and we seem to be flirting very closely to the debt being bigger than the club. 
You try borrowing 200k on a house valued at 170k you’ve got no chance 

I get you mate, I do.

It's just, well, you seem to be a bit of an alarmist. Sometimes!

In previous posts you've mentioned the levels of debt as a whole. Taking in stadium costs, Moshiris money, 777 money all into a oner.

But as said...777 won't be debt. Moshiri has, I'm pretty sure it's been stated, said he doesn't expect his money to be paid back just yet and its interest free, and the stadium money is...well, building a nice big income generating asset.

By no means do I think it's all good and smelling of roses. I just think, if you break it down into it's individual pots, a big chunk of the debt is kind of 'safe'.

The worrying debt it owed to sharks like that mysterious Cheshire based finance company who are charging a fortune in interest.

Less concerning is the debt owed to the Evertonian lads, who, to be honest, I kinda wish hadn't been blocked by the afore mentioned lot.

(Sorry, get the 2 companies names mixed up. They're pretty similar!).

[StevO]

Doesn’t help when Carragher is on Sky talking shite about administration and just made up speculation about the current state of affairs of 777. It’s like a random Twitter account being on a major tv network giving his opinion as fact. 

[Cornish Steve]

3 hours ago, Palfy said:

I get what everyone is saying that everything is built on debt and that’s the way of the world, but debt has to be paid back and as soon as you stop paying it back the people you owe the money to will call in their loans and that’s when you become insolvent, there’s a limit to any business where you’re debt becomes bigger than the business, and we seem to be flirting very closely to the debt being bigger than the club. 
You try borrowing 200k on a house valued at 170k you’ve got no chance 

One of the first things I learned when taking MBA classes was the importance of debt and of balancing equity with debt. Companies usually lose out if they don't use debt since they leave tax benefits on the table. Of course, there are many variables, and we don't know all factors in the case of 777, but I'd be amazed if they didn't leverage debt.

[Palfy]

8 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

One of the first tings I learned

When did you become Jamaican. 

[Cornish Steve]

12 minutes ago, Palfy said:

When did you become Jamaican. 

Corrected it quickly, man.

[Newty82]

43 minutes ago, Cornish Steve said:

One of the first things I learned when taking MBA classes was the importance of debt and of balancing equity with debt. Companies usually lose out if they don't use debt since they leave tax benefits on the table. Of course, there are many variables, and we don't know all factors in the case of 777, but I'd be amazed if they didn't leverage debt.

I was obsessed with business stuff in my 20s to early 30s. Used to buy all sorts of books. I do have a thick MBA one...never actually read it.

I know it's only TV, but I'd be glued to every episode of Dragons Den and The Apprentice...I'd buy all their books too!

Not sure what happened or when I veered away from it. I always wanted to work for myself from being a teen. Finally took the plunge a couple of years ago at 40...only to realise I was quite rusty! Haha. Thank fuck for mentors!!! It's gone well and, honestly, I can't see myself ever being employable now

[RuffRob]

13 hours ago, Palfy said:

You try borrowing 200k on a house valued at 170k you’ve got no chance 

other that the fact that you have purchased an appreciating asset. 

In 10 years time you asset is likely to be worth £350k -£400k.

key is being able to service the debt on the repayment plan agreed.

i am guessing 777's difficulties will be the short term until they generate the revenues they hope to be able achieve. 

[Cornish Steve]

11 hours ago, RuffRob said:

other that the fact that you have purchased an appreciating asset. 

In 10 years time you asset is likely to be worth £350k -£400k.

key is being able to service the debt on the repayment plan agreed.

i am guessing 777's difficulties will be the short term until they generate the revenues they hope to be able achieve. 

You're absolutely right about their likely focus on the short-term, since the biggest cause of bankruptcy is not debt but cash flow.

[Quinn31]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/04/world/europe/everton-777-partners-lawsuit.html

 

This potentially constitutes actual fraud and is the sort of thing people go to prison for...

[Palfy]

Just a quick count how many millionaires who own their own businesses do we have on here, a fair few I should imagine with all business acumen and advice flying around

[patto]

14 minutes ago, Palfy said:

Just a quick count how many millionaires who own their own businesses do we have on here, a fair few I should imagine with all business acumen and advice flying around

Will anyone own up ?

[patto]

Some clever bods on here for the size of the site. 

[KinL]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/cprgxj4zlneo

[Newty82]

17 hours ago, Palfy said:

Just a quick count how many millionaires who own their own businesses do we have on here, a fair few I should imagine with all business acumen and advice flying around

Do you have to be a millionaire to run your own business?

Is what your worth in directly linked to your worth in ?

I suppose you could also say there must be a fair few pro footballers and top level football managers on here?

[Newty82]

17 hours ago, patto said:

Some clever bods on here for the size of the site. 

'For the thinking Evertonian'

[Palfy]

56 minutes ago, Newty82 said:

Do you have to be a millionaire to run your own business?

Is what your worth in directly linked to your worth in ?

I suppose you could also say there must be a fair few pro footballers and top level football managers on here?

No you don’t have to be millionaire to run your own business, was just curious how many we had compared to those who say they know how to run a business, or as you Newty who have always been interested in business and it’s intricacies since a young entrepreneur. 
After all a successful business is its bottom line, my business has won numerous NHBC awards over the years which is valued by the company’s we work with and let’s them know that we aren’t cowboys, and helps us become preferred contractors if we are comparable on price with our competitors. 
But the most important thing is the bottom line, I can see no point in running a fantastic business that isn’t making money. 

[Matt]

35 minutes ago, Palfy said:

No you don’t have to be millionaire to run your own business, was just curious how many we had compared to those who say they know how to run a business, or as you Newty who have always been interested in business and it’s intricacies since a young entrepreneur. 
After all a successful business is its bottom line, my business has won numerous NHBC awards over the years which is valued by the company’s we work with and let’s them know that we aren’t cowboys, and helps us become preferred contractors if we are comparable on price with our competitors. 
But the most important thing is the bottom line, I can see no point in running a fantastic business that isn’t making money. 

Uber just recorded it's first profit in 10-15 years (can't remember which). Bottom line is important but the vision and mission is the most important.

[Palfy]

10 minutes ago, Matt said:

Uber just recorded it's first profit in 10-15 years (can't remember which). Bottom line is important but the vision and mission is the most important.

That isn’t correct Matt Uber have made profits in other years in the last 10 years, what cost them was they had to restructure the business due to employment laws.  

[Matt]

2 minutes ago, Palfy said:

That isn’t correct Matt Uber have made profits in other years in the last 10 years, what cost them was they had to restructure the business due to employment laws.  

https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/8/24065999/uber-earnings-profitable-year-net-income

No, I am correct. They've not posted a profit for 15 years, but their market value has always increased. Brand and vision have carried them to this point. I would've thought, and from what I've seen from entrepreneurs, is that businesses often run at a loss but are backed on their plan.

[Palfy]

15 minutes ago, Matt said:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/8/24065999/uber-earnings-profitable-year-net-income

No, I am correct. They've not posted a profit for 15 years, but their market value has always increased. Brand and vision have carried them to this point. I would've thought, and from what I've seen from entrepreneurs, is that businesses often run at a loss but are backed on their plan.

The Uk business of Uber which I have been looking at as made profit over many years. 

[Matt]

35 minutes ago, Palfy said:

The Uk business of Uber which I have been looking at as made profit over many years. 

Ok but the parent company hasn't. In any case the point you were making was the bottom line is the most important thing. I'm saying it's not based on that 1 of many examples where companies habitually lose money before either they turn the corner and finally achieve their vision or go bust.