Everton FC sale - speculation on timings

[Phenom]

Oh Damo

 

[bizzaro]

What about the fully legal offshore companies in the "pamama papers?"

Honestly, its beyond ridiculous in every way.

youre accusing the board of criminal activity based on a billionaire needing liquidty of less than 5% of his net worth..

Honestly. Zatara. You need to read the posts before commenting.

Its nothing to do with him needing 'liquidity'.


Its to do with the scrutiny that the BHS failure is going to cause.

Don't comment about something I have not said.


You're all over this thread commenting about stuff without actually understanding it:

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/philip-green.48425/

 

[bizzaro]

Really mate. There is no legal method of having the beneficial ownership of shares in a UK limited company different to that reported in its audited accounts and to the Premier League.

Its curous that Robert Earl never put a penny into EFC.

Not one penny.

Via his Virgin Islands investment vehicle located in the same building - I am led to believe - as Vibrac.

 

[bizzaro]

Damo, the directors declare in the accounts who the beneficial owners of their shares are. In Earls case this is declared as RI Earls, regardless of the fact that he holds them via on offshore company. This is where the illegality would lie, the Panama papers debate isn't relevant at all.

It is relevant. Who actually owns/owned the BRC in the Virgin Islands.

Given the secrecy there it notoriously difficult to find out who owns the off shore holding company

ergo it is relevant. Clearly.

 

[tommye]

Have I woken up in 2010?


pipe down Damo ffs

 

[toffee matt]

Honestly. Zatara. You need to read the posts before commenting.

Its nothing to do with him needing 'liquidity'.


Its to do with the scrutiny that the BHS failure is going to cause.

Don't comment about something I have not said.


You're all over this thread commenting about stuff without actually understanding it:

https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/threads/philip-green.48425/

You know all about that tbf

 

[Blue Cheese]

State of this thread. treading dangerously here like.

 

[Verbal Kint]

Shady dealings... Everton

Never (nothing libellous in that)

 

[degsy]

well it could be true, it is possible and all good conspiracy theories need an element of plausibility.

Proving it though, or even getting somebody to confirm it???

 

[mikewex]

It is relevant. Who actually owns/owned the BRC in the Virgin Islands.

Given the secrecy there it notoriously difficult to find out who owns the off shore holding company

ergo it is relevant. Clearly.

Your argument for you post no to be potentially libelous is:

Let's not say anything was ILLEGAL in terms if ownership structures.

Panama papers showed how oblique the off shoring area makes things

Not if it has been done through - arguably or not - legal means.

That is what the Panama Papers disclosures showed.

But its been pointed out several times that if PG owns the shares then, by definition, Earl must have made an illegal declaration, since he has stated he is the sole beneficial owner.

Really mate. There is no legal method of having the beneficial ownership of shares in a UK limited company different to that reported in its audited accounts and to the Premier League.

Damo, the directors declare in the accounts who the beneficial owners of their shares are. In Earls case this is declared as RI Earls, regardless of the fact that he holds them via on offshore company. This is where the illegality would lie, the Panama papers debate isn't relevant at all.

Finally

Are you not curious about the timings?

Philip Green has put assets in his wife's name to avoid liabilities before. He's also clearly been involved in the club (see Wyness).

This off shore loaning. Appears very curious. Given that it might start coming out if BHS goes where it has the potential too.

Yet we've been sold. To close any link.

Two things here. Firstly no one has ever come up with any reasonable reason why PG would go to any effort at all to hide a shareholding in EFC. He could just put it in his wives name, list her as the beneficial owner, and no-one is going to be able to gainsay it.

Further, the whole BHS thing really doesn't have the potential to go anywhere much. Green bought BHS, took a dividend when it was profitable and sold it on when it ceased to be. The only real issue with it is going to be if he needs to make a contribution to the underfunded pension fund over and above the £80m cash and £80m loan (or rather how much more, don't think the offer will be enough).

 

[bizzaro]

well it could be true, it is possible and all good conspiracy theories need an element of plausibility.

Proving it though, or even getting somebody to confirm it???

The Panama Papers proved one thing.

When it comes to offshoring @The Esk - anything is possible.

 

[bizzaro]

Your argument for you post no to be potentially libelous is:


But its been pointed out several times that if PG owns the shares then, by definition, Earl must have made an illegal declaration, since he has stated he is the sole beneficial owner.

Finally

Two things here. Firstly no one has ever come up with any reasonable reason why PG would go to any effort at all to hide a shareholding in EFC. He could just put it in his wives name, list her as the beneficial owner, and no-one is going to be able to gainsay it.

Further, the whole BHS thing really doesn't have the potential to go anywhere much. Green bought BHS, took a dividend when it was profitable and sold it on when it ceased to be. The only real issue with it is going to be if he needs to make a contribution to the underfunded pension fund over and above the £80m cash and £80m loan (or rather how much more, don't think the offer will be enough).

You're missing the point entirely. Its not all about the figures. The Pensions Act 2004 - puts Philip Green under a potential scrutiny he has never had before.

I am saying the the sale of EFC when it happened was remarkable given the timings.

 

[mightymoyes]

obviously green is a very dodgy character. the only thing to worry about here is he was giving kenwright advice

 

[Whistlin' Dixie]

obviously green is a very dodgy character. the only thing to worry about here is he was giving kenwright advice

Just as disconcerting is kenwright's fawning appraisals of him imo.

 

[larbert toffee]

But Green is basically accused of helping himself to Pension funds and paying dividends from them as well.. he obviously didn't leave himself short of a few bob so where does his share of BK's £25-50M pay off (debt settlement) come into the grand scheme of things?