Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

*Shakes head* Everton again.


Fugitive

Recommended Posts

Anderson is clearly after a job at Everton when his Mayorship runs out. Writing letters to the police and now this. I actually think he’s just rewording the guarantor thing knowing it will wind up a load of people (mainly reds) and endear himself more to these gobshites. There’s no way he’s in a position to be throwing around 200m+. It would require Westminster government input etc. Separately I’d honestly be surprised if they actually got away with this guarantor thing as well. If it gets that far I can’t see a Tory govt letting it happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FM on Jim White: “He is a friend of mine. He calls me late at night and he gets something out of me. They are conversations between two friends and they shouldn’t appear on Sky or Twitter. It won’t be happening again.”

 

*heavy breathing*

 

“What you wearing Moshi baby?”

 

"And then, Farhad, I lightly run my trembling fingertips down your back..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mayor Anderson is clear on this: “We provide security, using our status as an organisation, enabling them to go to the market to secure a loan.

 

“It won’t cost taxpayers any funding or any money at all. Indeed the reverse is true – Liverpool city council, out of the deal for that security, will receive a substantial amount of money, in excess of £4.4m a year if we do reach an agreement.”

 

And he added: “We’ve made no offer to fund the stadium and we have not been in talks with Everton to do so.”

 

A quote from Joe Anderson in an Echo report from March 2017.

 

Also, wasn't the SPV signed off by the Council on the basis of a £300m costing and on the understanding that no public money would be used, with the loan which the SPV would apply to being one that Everton would secure via the market?

 

Surely now that the loan is coming from the council, that totally changes the nature of what was signed off on and needs a fresh approval? As will the rising costs issues?

 

It stinks. But, given that Everton have gone to the Council for a loan and are yet to secure the additional 1/3 of funding from another lender, I'd be a bit concerned by the true financial clout of Moshi La if I was a blue.

 

I think the plan has been for the council to fund this all along, via the loan/SPV mechanism, with the Commonwealth Games bid being the justification, but they can no longer use that as a fall back.

 

If so, Anderson has pretty much lied to everyone, red, blue and non-football fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Council has power to borrow money cheap then lend it cheap to a developer doing a regeneration scheme. Shouldn't cost the Council anything unless the Developer defaults in which case the loan risk sits with the Council. It's legal but what stinks is the vested interests. Would the Council be doing this for some other developer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the SPV was mooted the stadium costs have increased by two-thirds of the original stated cost, in a little over... ...what, 18 months? I'm sorry, but this needs stepping on and a full report to taxpayers before it moves forward.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Council has power to borrow money cheap then lend it cheap to a developer doing a regeneration scheme. Shouldn't cost the Council anything unless the Developer defaults in which case the loan risk sits with the Council. It's legal but what stinks is the vested interests. Would the Council be doing this for some other developer?

The council should not be taking on a massive risk like this. We have companies that lend money and they're called banks. This absolutely stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the SPV was mooted the stadium costs have increased by two-thirds of the original stated cost, in a little over... ...what, 18 months? I'm sorry, but this needs stepping on and a full report to taxpayers before it moves forward.

If you're a ratepayer you could try writing to the district auditor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The council should not be taking on a massive risk like this. We have companies that lend money and they're called banks. This absolutely stinks.

 

Agreed. The power is supposed to be for regeneration schemes which wouldn't otherwise go ahead because the finances don't quite stack up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...