As someone who sits on boards and has both won and lost in the boardroom, the message here to me is simple it means one of two things.
1. If you ran your club better and didn't need to keep coming to me for money then I wouldn't need to place someone on the board to make sure you don't waste my investment. This happens all the time. I have seen banks/venture caps/equity funds all insist on placing someone on the board to protect their investment.
2. I am eventually coming for the whole thing and I want to make sure you don't make a mess of this before I am ready to move in and secure control.
I think that is possibly too simplistic a view in this case.
Football is a different type of business than many others and at Everton the situation is different again. How the money was spent is no secret , bringing a new director on board is no guarantee the club will sign better players.
We are talking about a business which is almost completely owned by one man or unofficially two men.
The board has as much power as he wants it to have or they want it to have.
The board is now made up of people bringing different skills, advisory rather than managerial in many respects.
The Moshiri/Usmanov/Everton relationship is unknown but given their close relationship in the past and at present where they continue to work together in several entities I don't see why this should be different.
What we don't know is what the ownership breakdown will be in the future and in my opinion it will not be in the name of Usmanov but his nephew if ownership is shared in the future.