777 Partners - Revised Poll Added 07/05/2024

Revised Polling options on who wants a 777 takeover


  • Total voters
    441
  • This poll will close: .
Toxic would be covenants that include:

1. Debt to be paid in full in the event of a change in control (though a new buyer would probably want to refinance anyway).
2. Large penalties for early prepayment (making the cost to refinance very high).

I'm sure there are others, but the amount and the rate aren't that big of a deal. The debt was needed to finish the stadium and keep the lights on. The rate can be refinanced, subject to the above.

This really. Our situation is we couldn't get credit from one source to build the ground, we just didn't have the credit worthiness, an owner who was viable and the risk was to high.

Thus we had to peicemeil the funding through private equity.

A new owner refinances the debt, by borrowing more then we already owe as their will inevitably be penalty clauses, to pay each lender and roll up all debt into one big construction loan over a long period and like a mortgage let inflation do its thing.

Its much easier to borrow for a finished stadium then one being built.

We need to get there first though.
 
This really. Our situation is we couldn't get credit from one source to build the ground, we just didn't have the credit worthiness, an owner who was viable and the risk was to high.

Thus we had to peicemeil the funding through private equity.

A new owner refinances the debt, by borrowing more then we already owe as their will inevitably be penalty clauses, to pay each lender and roll up all debt into one big construction loan over a long period and like a mortgage let inflation do its thing.

Its much easier to borrow for a finished stadium then one being built.

We need to get there first though.
There's been talk about creditors taking a haircut but I don't really see it when there is a turning point in sight where capital expenditure ends and increased revenue starts. The issue as you say is getting through that period, so if there's going to be flexibility from the creditors to get us there safely maybe an 18 month "payment holiday" might help the business survive without a hit on the debt itself.
 
There's been talk about creditors taking a haircut but I don't really see it when there is a turning point in sight where capital expenditure ends and increased revenue starts. The issue as you say is getting through that period, so if there's going to be flexibility from the creditors to get us there safely maybe an 18 month "payment holiday" might help the business survive without a hit on the debt itself.

I think what's more likely is a renegotiation mate, if we were or did get into trouble its in no ones interest for us to go into administration, there fore id say there could be negotiations in regard to delayed payments and cash calls - especially as you say there is a predictable turning point.

Take Lang O Rourke for example, if we couldn't pay the entire stadium bill, it could be in there interests to eat that and look to be paid 12 months later - im just using that as an example as opposed to that being likely.
 


In Everton land, Peter Johnson was the devil incarnate despite investing significant amounts of money into the club, and being the last owner to win a trophy.

Then Kenwright was the saviour, who “saved us from Johnson lad”, but didn’t invest a penny and tried to swap Goodison for a carbon copy of the New Den in Knowsley.

Then Uncle Uzzy became the new saviour, our version of Abramovich, “We’re effing rich” we sang, only for us to supposedly become more skint than ever before.

So I don’t know, I’m not going to cack myself too much if 777 do takeover. I’m going to wait and see how they can possibly be any worse than what we’ve become accustomed to over the past 30 years before I join in the Hysteria at Northgate Arena.
 
That sentence doesn’t make any sense though because “toxic debt” is about the debtor not the creditor- it’s about ability to repay. Everton might be 777’s toxic debt (arguably are) but not the other way around.

Financing the stadium was always going to involve taking on debt so while the debt level will be a concern, no buyer could reasonably expect to buy a club with a new 800m stadium cheap and debt free. The identity of the creditors is fairly unimportant, whoever it is any buyer coming in should intend to repay or refinance it.
I agree the headline sensationalises the story but it makes sense that 777 are using the money they put in to put off any potential buyers, I suspect they will expect that back in full should someone else buy it with Moshiri still asking £500m... £700m plus the debt on the club makes it very expensive.

No idea how this ends but I wouldn`t be surprised if the PL approved 777 for takeover even though 100% of the money to buy us will be borrowed.
 

Top