777 Partners - New Poll Added 18/10/23

[Tony’s Carp]

He said it at a private a function with supporters before Xmas mate.

Remember the last AGM in 2019 when Moshiri couldn’t attend because he was tying up the final details to the stadium funding deal.

He’s definitely on record saying the stadium was fully funded. The only way that can be true I see is if there is a funding agreement with 777 that is independent of the sale agreement since it’s them providing the funding. If that’s the case then “we’ll stop funding” starts to sound like a bluff. Or Chong was being, er, inaccurate although he doesn’t seem the dishonest type.

 

[Eggsyblueskin]

Essentially they are trying to bully their way past the requirements they cannot meet , the same way they did at Liege.
They are hustlers , nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Evertonthat]

Can we not, for the love of God, just have an owner that's not batshit crazy, a hustler, useless, putins mate or a dinosaur... is it not too much to ask to just have a decent owner?

 

[SwedishToffee]

Can we not, for the love of God, just have an owner that's not batshit crazy, a hustler, useless, putins mate or a dinosaur... is it not too much to ask to just have a decent owner?

There are very few decent owners in professional sport, mostly because decent people usually don't become rich enough to own a top level professional sports team.

 

[Toffe3m4n]

Unless a new party enters the fray I fear for our future

This is the thing for me.

I'm really quite shocked/saddened that seemingly no one else is willing to step up to the plate for the club. This whole saga gives off the distinct feeling of 'vultures circling', if anything.

 

[garyw]

The 3.6 billion dollar question - josimarfootball.com

Documents seen by Josimar suggest that 777 Partners owed a total of 3.6 billion US dollars to creditors in the summer of 2023. Overdue debt-related payments totalling over 145 million dollars raises fresh concerns about the finances of the US group and its portfolio of clubs.

josimarfootball.com

 

[blulouie]

The 3.6 billion dollar question - josimarfootball.com

Documents seen by Josimar suggest that 777 Partners owed a total of 3.6 billion US dollars to creditors in the summer of 2023. Overdue debt-related payments totalling over 145 million dollars raises fresh concerns about the finances of the US group and its portfolio of clubs.

josimarfootball.com

Like a dog with a bone these 2.

 

[Toffe3m4n]

Like a dog with a bone these 2.

They'll literally have nothing to talk about when this is over and done with.

Just find it all a bit odd me.. not witch-hunty at all

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

They'll literally have nothing to talk about when this is over and done with.

Just find it all a bit odd me.. not witch-hunty at all

Numbers may be true, and it’s all very murky and it doesn’t look ideal, no clue as to what 777 do on a day to day basis, but not an accountant anywhere near these X - posts. Starting from a default position of any debt and money owed to creditors is always terrifying gives a great headline. Same way as possession as % and XG are important, they don’t tell you who got the 3 points.

 

[Toffe3m4n]

Even the perpetually-negative 'EFC TRUTH' account is weighing in against Esk here..

 

[Walken]

Even the perpetually-negative 'EFC TRUTH' account is weighing in against Esk here..

View attachment 247965

Ooh he won't like being paddled for being gullible on a financial matter

 

[Toffeeslam]

Even the perpetually-negative 'EFC TRUTH' account is weighing in against Esk here..

View attachment 247965

Thing is Morshiri seems to want out and these are the only ones that will meet his asking price.

Even if it loads the club with lots of debt …

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Numbers may be true, and it’s all very murky and it doesn’t look ideal, no clue as to what 777 do on a day to day basis, but not an accountant anywhere near these X - posts. Starting from a default position of any debt and money owed to creditors is always terrifying gives a great headline. Same way as possession as % and XG are important, they don’t tell you who got the 3 points.

Yeah the article literally says a large chunk of the debt is taken out against their structured settlements ie money they are owed and collecting on a regular basis. It doesn’t say the value of these but a lender surely isn’t going to lend more than the value of these. So they have a guaranteed long term yield and are borrowing against the value of this to make further short term investments. That’s very normal.

Like you say anything that focuses on debt without analysis of the flip side isn’t going to give a full picture but will make a natty headline. Same with Everton to an extent, we hear daily about the debt but never the corresponding assets. Hell, you could make a headline about how much debt me and the missus are in and it would sound pretty scary if you ignore the fact it corresponds to the property we own and have positive equity in.

As always with these there is very worrying detail in the article but never an attempt at balance or a complete picture.

 

[Toffe3m4n]

Yeah the article literally says a large chunk of the debt is taken out against their structured settlements ie money they are owed and collecting on a regular basis. It doesn’t say the value of these but a lender surely isn’t going to lend more than the value of these. So they have a guaranteed long term yield and are borrowing against the value of this to make further short term investments. That’s very normal.

Like you say anything that focuses on debt without analysis of the flip side isn’t going to give a full picture but will make a natty headline. Same with Everton to an extent, we hear daily about the debt but never the corresponding assets. Hell, you could make a headline about how much debt me and the missus are in and it would sound pretty scary if you ignore the fact it corresponds to the property we own and have positive equity in.

As always with these there is very worrying detail in the article but never an attempt at balance or a complete picture.

Scaremongering & sensationalism for impressions. That's all it really boils down to.

They may very well have some pertinent points - but as you say, it's always a very unbalanced view and I'm particularly wary about those kind of arguments.

 

[Tony’s Carp]

Scaremongering & sensationalism for impressions. That's all it really boils down to.

They may very well have some pertinent points - but as you say, it's always a very unbalanced view and I'm particularly wary about those kind of arguments.

The problem I’ve had for months now is that by sensationalising things that are very ordinary they undermine the credibility of the genuinely concerning stuff they report.

Plucking one scary number off a document (that they don’t publish) cannot possibly illustrate a complete picture in the unbelievably complex world of finance.