Farhad Moshiri

[MartyMcFly]

Without Moshiri there's no way we'd have gotten RK but to get RK Moshiri exaggerated the budget.
If we'd have landed Siss and say Bony on loan we'd have spent only around 1/3 of the mooted £100m but there would be a totally different perception.
I think this is what he expected. To spend far less than mooted but still be seen as the messiah. Instead there was an f up and he's angry because his rep is tarnished. It's now going to be harder for him to sell his vision of a new stadium and secure investment and cooperation.

Secure investment?

And here was me thinking that's was the point of him coming on board.

 

[ToffeeDoug]

@The Esk

We know that Ryazanstev is Moshiri's 'man on the ground' representative at the club, but do you feel that Moshiri might seek to become more personally involved in the running of the club for a while, helping to push the new stadium move, making changes to the club's management structure and governance and trying to ensure that the January transfer window is a resounding success for the club?

 

[The Esk]

@The Esk

We know that Ryazanstev is Moshiri's 'man on the ground' representative at the club, but do you feel that Moshiri might seek to become more personally involved in the running of the club for a while, helping to push the new stadium move, making changes to the club's management structure and governance and trying to ensure that the January transfer window is a resounding success for the club?

I think if he decides to run Everton like his other investments he'll put a stronger management team in place, particularly at CEO level. We know he's involved with the stadium as that is critical to the success of his investment, but looking at his other investments he's not really an operational guy, so changes to management and governance seem to be the most likely route going forward for matters other than the stadium.

 

[MartyMcFly]

Still, big chunk of change for someone with no intentions to improve the club

New TV money is causing the valuations of all clubs to rise. He could do nothing and still make a decent profit.

I'm not saying that's his plan but it's not unthinkable.

 

[MartyMcFly]

That's of course possible. But the fans and first team squad were in rebellion. It's hard for any manager to survive such a situation.

He was either going to be fired or lynched in that last game. Moshiri or no Moshiri Martinez was finished.

The only difference is I think we would have Moyes now instead.

 

[Toffeelover]

....question from me please; for whatever reason, was there a dependency on getting the Stones money in or was it a coincidence that our transfer activity seemed to ramp up after he had transferred to City?

Good one Eggs but I suppose the answer is - who knows?

 

[Bullet]

to deluded yourself with no evidence about 100m, is laughable.

I don't delude myself on that matter and my post didn't suggest otherwise.

 

[whiteshadow]

Fair question mate.

I don't believe for a second there was any dependency on Stones being sold in order to fund our own acquisitions. Why do I say this? (i) because Moshiri had made funds available (ii) we were bidding and expected to close acquisitions (like Witsel) long before Stones was sold (iii) if we were dependent upon Stones being sold we would have done so much earlier in the window and not held on for the period of time we did given the activity and expectation of landing players earlier in the window and (iv) we were bidding and anticipating signing players after we had used the funds made available from Stones' sale.

I get your points but a cynic could say:

(i) No evidence funds were available over and above TV money. We haven't even spent any of the TV money, let alone the additional revenue for this year.

(ii) Bidding on players we didn't really expect to come or agree terms with us.

(iii) Not if you were holding out for the most money you can get for Stones.

(iv) Any signings we made that were looking close to complete could be covered by the additional TV money without any evidence to show additional funding was available. We were also bidding on a player with 3rd party ownership on the last day of the transfer window. If you were looking to put in bids you didn't actually want to pull off it was ideal.

I don't get why people are expecting the board to spend big or make ammends for the mistakes in January. We weren't prepared to even spend the extra 10m Euro's to get Brahimi.

The board aren't going to pay the kind of prices that would be quoted in the January window for anyone of note. They couldn't and didn't do it this window. All that'll happen is we'll wait until next summer, when we've lost the ability to increase wages due to the sale of Stones so we sell Lukaku and use his transfer to generate our money for transfers.

 

[tirion]

Then BK, JW and AA have the option to keep their remaining shares or sell in the market to other potential buyers.

@The Esk Do you reckon he reads these forums? and if so how long before decides to sell his shares to the Americans previously interested? its virtually a week of unbroken cryar**** now. quite incredible

 

[The Esk]

I get your points but a cynic could say:

(i) No evidence funds were available over and above TV money. We haven't even spent any of the TV money, let alone the additional revenue for this year.

(ii) Bidding on players we didn't really expect to come or agree terms with us.

(iii) Not if you were holding out for the most money you can get for Stones.

(iv) Any signings we made that were looking close to complete could be covered by the additional TV money without any evidence to show additional funding was available. We were also bidding on a player with 3rd party ownership on the last day of the transfer window. If you were looking to put in bids you didn't actually want to pull off it was ideal.

I don't get why people are expecting the board to spend big or make ammends for the mistakes in January. We weren't prepared to even spend the extra 10m Euro's to get Brahimi.

The board aren't going to pay the kind of prices that would be quoted in the January window for anyone of note. They couldn't and didn't do it this window.

All that'll happen is we'll wait until next summer, when we've lost the ability to increase wages due to the sale of Stones so we sell Lukaku and use his transfer to generate our money for transfers.

(i) as I have explained previously funds were available and I am satisfied with that evidence.
(ii) We had agreed terms with Zenit and Witsel by July 5th. Witsel subsequently revised those terms
(iii) we didn't get the price we were asking for Stones despite the delay in completion.
(iv)The club did not become aware of the ownership issues relating to Brahimi until very late in the process.

I appreciate you have a different view, but the counter argument is overwhelming.

 

[The Esk]

@The Esk Do you reckon he reads these forums? and if so how long before decides to sell his shares to the Americans previously interested? its virtually a week of unbroken cryar**** now. quite incredible

No I don't believe he does and the US interest sailed along time ago. Moshiri is not a seller of Everton mate.

 

[The Esk]

New TV money is causing the valuations of all clubs to rise. He could do nothing and still make a decent profit.

I'm not saying that's his plan but it's not unthinkable.

If that was the case why did he swap £200 million worth of exposure to the PL for nominally £87.5 million of exposure given the view he won't provide subsequent investment?

Doesn't make sense.

 

[dandydan]

No I don't believe he does and the US interest sailed along time ago. Moshiri is not a seller of Everton mate.

If he saw the transfer thread he'd probably cut his losses and run for the hills.

 

[davmaher]

(i) as I have explained previously funds were available and I am satisfied with that evidence.
(ii) We had agreed terms with Zenit and Witsel by July 5th. Witsel subsequently revised those terms
(iii) we didn't get the price we were asking for Stones despite the delay in completion.
(iv)The club did not become aware of the ownership issues relating to Brahimi until very late in the process.

I appreciate you have a different view, but the counter argument is overwhelming.

I don't consider myself to be an expert on European football by any stretch, but even I was aware that there was a 3rd party ownership arrangement with Brahimi well before deadline day. If the club were not aware of this until late on this is mismanagement/incompetence of the highest order.
I agree with your other points and your view on the window overall. Usually when there's a choice between conspiracy and incompetence my money's on the latter.

 

[davek]

I get your points but a cynic could say:

(i) No evidence funds were available over and above TV money. We haven't even spent any of the TV money, let alone the additional revenue for this year.

(ii) Bidding on players we didn't really expect to come or agree terms with us.

(iii) Not if you were holding out for the most money you can get for Stones.

(iv) Any signings we made that were looking close to complete could be covered by the additional TV money without any evidence to show additional funding was available. We were also bidding on a player with 3rd party ownership on the last day of the transfer window. If you were looking to put in bids you didn't actually want to pull off it was ideal.

I don't get why people are expecting the board to spend big or make ammends for the mistakes in January. We weren't prepared to even spend the extra 10m Euro's to get Brahimi.

The board aren't going to pay the kind of prices that would be quoted in the January window for anyone of note. They couldn't and didn't do it this window. All that'll happen is we'll wait until next summer, when we've lost the ability to increase wages due to the sale of Stones so we sell Lukaku and use his transfer to generate our money for transfers.

I dont think you'd have to be too much of a cynic to hold with that alternative explanation of events, tbf.