Everton change bridging loan from Barclays to company in BVI

Phenom · August 21, 2011

There is already a thread on this mate.

Muggins · August 21, 2011

Sorry Snods, gonna merge this mate.

Phil Neville Superstar · August 21, 2011

Snodin said:
I run a£5 million pound turnover buisness think I may apply to everton because they don't have a clue !! It's like food shopping on your credit card but worse think we are in a real ££ mess ! All these deals with big cola bet fair etc these need to be bigger deals £10 mill of Chang is nothing ! Gotta a feeling goodison will have it's name sold next as we have nothing left other than players to sell and moyes won't allow that

Yeah, I'm sure you do. http://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/37672-Sell-sell-sell

Snodin · August 21, 2011

I do run a £5 mill buisness doesn't belong to me wish it did from that £5 mill turnover it returns a £1.4 mill profit

Woolly Blue · August 21, 2011

Snodin said:
I do run a £5 mill buisness doesn't belong to me wish it did from that £5 mill turnover it returns a £1.4 mill profit

Lots of businesses have lumpy income and use overdrafts / loans to smooth out those lumps. In that respect EFC are just an ordinary business dealing with a cashflow situation by taking out a loan.

johnnydawg68 · August 21, 2011

Tubey said:
That's not investing FFS. Not even close.

The **** it isn't. Investment means an expectation of return (profit) on a cash outlay. What you and everyone else is on about is a handout so that we can buy players with their money and never return a profit to the people who put the money in.

What world do all of you guys live in? Who, in their right mind, would put 15-20 million in with a ROI of never (which is exactly what would happen). And if that 15-20 million did make Everton a profitable club by getting us in the CL or something, every single one of you would be banging on about taking that money and spending it on more players, not delivering a profit to the people who actually risked their money.

This is all so tiresome. Everton are a money losing proposition without a new stadium. As such it must and will be run with tight purse strings. There is no money tree, there is no Sheikh coming to save the day, there is no magic formula that hasn't been tried that is going to suddenly start returning 10's of millions so we can go out and buy foreign strikers.

Nordecke · August 21, 2011

johnnydawg68 said:
The **** it isn't. Investment means an expectation of return (profit) on a cash outlay. What you and everyone else is on about is a handout so that we can buy players with their money and never return a profit to the people who put the money in.

What world do all of you guys live in? Who, in their right mind, would put 15-20 million in with a ROI of never (which is exactly what would happen). And if that 15-20 million did make Everton a profitable club by getting us in the CL or something, every single one of you would be banging on about taking that money and spending it on more players, not delivering a profit to the people who actually risked their money.

This is all so tiresome. Everton are a money losing proposition without a new stadium. As such it must and will be run with tight purse strings. There is no money tree, there is no Sheikh coming to save the day, there is no magic formula that hasn't been tried that is going to suddenly start returning 10's of millions so we can go out and buy foreign strikers.

ZAP! Plus 1 Reppizzle.

Hibbert&Ernie · August 21, 2011

davek said:
Yes, that's probably right. But as the article also states the shifting about of this arrangement from serious financial institutions like Investec and Barclays probably points to Everton needing to look 'in-house' to secure loans now, and an indication at how poor a prospect we are for orthodox finance houses. My main concern is Earl/Green and the stranglehod they have on this club. That info is about as welcome as a fart in a space suit if you're a fan looking for governance with the best interests of the club in mind.

A very fancy line Dave. Could you elaborate please, ie, what are you actually getting at, and why.

Number_25 · August 21, 2011

Oh dear.

A board member taking interest from a loan?

Its Peter Johnson all over again.

davek · August 21, 2011

johnnydawg68 said:
The **** it isn't. Investment means an expectation of return (profit) on a cash outlay. What you and everyone else is on about is a handout so that we can buy players with their money and never return a profit to the people who put the money in.

What world do all of you guys live in? Who, in their right mind, would put 15-20 million in with a ROI of never (which is exactly what would happen). And if that 15-20 million did make Everton a profitable club by getting us in the CL or something, every single one of you would be banging on about taking that money and spending it on more players, not delivering a profit to the people who actually risked their money.

This is all so tiresome. Everton are a money losing proposition without a new stadium. As such it must and will be run with tight purse strings. There is no money tree, there is no Sheikh coming to save the day, there is no magic formula that hasn't been tried that is going to suddenly start returning 10's of millions so we can go out and buy foreign strikers.

The pay off comes in a sale of shares in a takeover.

davek · August 21, 2011

Hibbert&Ernie said:
A very fancy line Dave. Could you elaborate please, ie, what are you actually getting at, and why.

The very obvious point that the club is now pulled even more within the orbit of absentee and shadow directors who's motives for continued involvement in it for sporting purposes aren't clear.

chriswho · August 21, 2011

davek said:
You surely cant be making an apology for a man who's charging extortionate (sorry, 'exorbitant') rates for a loan to a club he's the custodian of.

Wasn't this what Hicks and Gillette were doing with LFC? Is this common or not. Seems shady to me, but it also seems like a shrewd business move (and you don't get millions without knowing how to be a shrewd investor).

broudie · August 21, 2011

davek said:
How would anyone draw that conclusion?

It's simple enough: Everton have shifted lending institutions who provide this bridging loan. Now it's shifted again and the deal seems to be that instead of Everton paying £1.6M pa for that *priviledge* we now pay £1.3M to a club director.

Now you can only arrive at this point: do you think the saving of £0.3M is acceptable if it means that £1.3m is going to a club director? That's the moral hazard here. I know what I think.

I suppose at the end of the day you could make all kinds of tortuous arguments trying to redefine who's paying what to whom in an effort to defend the indefensible. It's far easier to call a spade a spade and say what you see in front of you though.

With respect Dave, what do morals have to do with it? Robert Earl is not a supporter of Everton FC, he's a business man. If he is going to either lend the club money, (directly or otherwise), or guarantee a loan with his own money, he's going to expect a return of some kind.

Forgetting the Everton connection here - is it moral for Banks to keep charging businesses who are struggling to stay afloat interest on their loans and mortgages? Probably not, but it's regrettably how the world works. I can't see this as being any different - regardless of my feelings for the club, why shouldn't we operate under the same conditions of business as anyone else?

davek · August 21, 2011

broudie said:
With respect Dave, what do morals have to do with it? Robert Earl is not a supporter of Everton FC, he's a business man. If he is going to either lend the club money, (directly or otherwise), or guarantee a loan with his own money, he's going to expect a return of some kind.

Forgetting the Everton connection here - is it moral for Banks to keep charging businesses who are struggling to stay afloat interest on their loans and mortgages? Probably not, but it's regrettably how the world works. I can't see this as being any different - regardless of my feelings for the club, why shouldn't we operate under the same conditions of business as anyone else?

That's fair enough, but these people are talked up by Kenwright as being 'a great asset to the club with his commercial knowledge' (Earl), and 'a great friend to Everton Football Club' (Green). They're presented as positives for Everton rather than the parasites they actually are. But that's ok. I understand and accept that these people are what they are. We should all recognise that and have no truck with confusing comments designed to show that they're benefactors or, at the very least, that their best interests coincide with ours...they aren't and they dont, as this little episode underlines.

broudie · August 21, 2011

davek said:
That's fair enough, but these people are talked up by Kenwright as being 'a great asset to the club with his commercial knowledge' (Earl), and 'a great friend to Everton Football Club' (Green). They're presented as positives for Everton rather than the parasites they actually are. But that's ok. I understand and accept that these people are what they are. We should all recognise that and have no truck with confusing comments designed to show that they're benefactors or, at the very least, that their best interests coincide with ours...they aren't and they dont, as this little episode underlines.

I'd rather we had some cash-rich Evertonians involved, but at the very very least, having these two at the club could well be what's preventing the Bank coming after us Portsmouth style. Am I happy with them? No. Have I got any choice in the matter? Also no. They are going to have to do until something bigger and/or better comes along.