It's called a poll vote and it all too predictably negated the thrust of the EGM. There is a mechanism by which a One-Man, One-Vote (ooh how sexist!) can be implemented ? I'm sure I read it somewhere ? but money is power. The big shareholders knew exactly how to secure the desired result and this allowed them to blithely ignore most issues raised, steaming forward with their "clear mandate" with openness and transparency... it's like listening to the Republican Convention!

I’m sorry but what businesses have people worked in where a minority shareholder who owns one share has the same say as the president of the company holding 10,000 shares? I’d just like to know where that company exists because I have never heard of it. It amazes me when people react shocked at how these things work. When a major financial decision is being made the number of shares you own gives you more say, that’s just the way it is. If you want to have more say, then buy up a majority of shares.

David,
The point is, seven hundred shareholders are a good sample size and are therefore quite representative of the fanbase. The majority voted to sack Kirkby..... i.e. not even consider it any further. That shopuld alarm anyone still advocating it. It has lost the support it gained by another fundamentally flawed vote based on lies. They knew if they had had a show of hands there would have only been Tom Cannon and a few mates in favour..... and their so called mandate would have been non-existant. These fans are stake holders, it is their backsides that will be expected to fill seats in any new stadium, not multiple shares held by the few in the heirarchy.

Sorry to bore you with the facts, but using the figures shown on toffeeweb, if we exclude the three major shareholders, voting was: 3332 shares against the resolution and 622 for it.

So Billy and his two mates could have abstained and it still would have failed, by a factor of more than five to one!

Can we please have less emotional reaction and more carefully considered opinion?

Albert and Tom,

As well as the naivety of believing that Everton would or should implement one man one vote systems, I think you need to realise something else about Everton Football Club. it’s a business. It’s not run "for" the fans. It’s not run "by" the fans. It’s run to make money. God knows it’s not being run very well in this regards, but it’s sole purpose is to make money.

With this in mind, why would or should it take any notice of 700 dissident shareholders, when it has a scheme which it believes will make the club more money?

The club knows that fans are fickle and too loyal in equal measure. It’s like the Geordies demonstrating for King Kev. If Wise or whoever wins 3 games in a row, it’ll be King Dennis. The same with Everton. If we end up in Kirkby, fans will attend. End of story.

God knows I’d love Everton to adopt a "Barcelona" style model of club ownership, but let’s be honest it’s not going to happen. We’re suporters of a football club, that’s all. We have no more rights other that to moan about what happens, or to not turn up to games.

So moan all you like, but please don’t expect it to change anything. End of depressing realism lesson!

OK Laurence - try this. Did 3332 plus 622 people attend the EGM? No (other large shareholders [i.e. 1000’s of votes] are Grantchester and Abercromby, both reputedly pro-Kirkby men]). Let’s say about 1000 people attended, I counted about 600 in the main room and doubt that there were 400 in the overspill. So, on the simple assumption of one man-one vote, the concensus of opinion was against Kirkby, by 60/40. Calm and rationa;l enough for you? The maths is imprecise but the conclusions are correct..

Probably a silly question but, given the nature of the EGM, was it not more likely to attract anti-Kirby Shareholders, so not truly representative of the fanbase? just a thought.

Damn I can’t spell Kirkby :-(

On another note, something more to worry about.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7599539.stm

Mark, Good point, but the other significant players’ (Grantchester etc.) opinions are important because:

a) They have a lot to loose, financially, by damaging the club.

b) They are much closer to the powerbase, and have a better understanding of the reasoning behind the decision. They have had the opportunity to question the decision makers over time. As the debate has been going on for several years, thats a lot of discussions in the directors box!

c) In this situation they are equivalent to Non-Executive Directors, they give us the "checks and balances". I HOPE!

Laurence,
I believe there were only 700+ at the EGM with over 600 voting against even considering Kirkby any further. If the anti-kirkby shareholders had been allowed to make a powerpoint presentation too that would have been even more. Having a vote was meaningless.

I have just received the e-mail from Everton telling me that "97.7% of the Shareholders.....etc" and have asked them to change the wording of these announcements to "97.7% of the Shareholding....etc". Somehow I doubt if I’ll get a reply !

People (like Laurence above), who patronisingly think that we somehow don’t understand the mechanics of shareholder capitalism, should give some thought to what I am now going to say. It is simply not true to say that 97.7% of the shareholders approved the move to Kirkby.
Or perhaps I should lecture you in the English language, as you seem so keen to lecture me in company law. Put Bill Kenwright and me in a room together, and in that room you have two Everton shareholders, not twenty thousand and one shareholders, or whatever the total number of shares owned by the two people is.
I would have no objection to the club saying "97.7% of the shareholding" or "97.7% of the shares" supported the move to Kirkby - but it is simply a lie to say that "97.7% of the shareholders" do because of the vote.

Is that clear enough ?

So "Moomin papa" or whatever your real name is, "We can?t afford a new stadium other than Kirkby".
You just don’t understand it do you?<
We can’t even afford Kirkby!
Not at "virtually free", not at £78m and certainly not at the £99m currently being quoted.
Get real. Kirkby is for the good of Tesco PLC and no one else. Leahy heads a ruthless corporate monster not a charity. Kirkby will be the beginning of the end for this once great club of ours.

I thought the shareholders needed 20% to call for the EGM, which they got.

On the night of the EGM, of the 20% who called for it , over 17% went with the board, they must have as 97.7% of shares voted with the board
Or put another way, 85% of those not happy prior to the meeting didn’t stick to their original decision.

Doesn’t that say enough?
Unless of course it’s not 20% of shares that can call the EGM but 20% of shareholders. In which case a significant number of people with a small holding in a company can call the main investors to explain their actions. So the small investor does have a voice and a seemingly powerful one at that.(how many other clubs have held egm this summer?)br />It’s difficult to know the real situation as the club talk of %shareholding and shareholders and seem to make them interchangeable.

Brian, I totally agree with what you say. The WORDING of the statement has a lot to be desired. However, the real issue is that the more shares you have the more say you have and that is how it should be. As a 60% share holder in a company I am certainly not going to consider myself on a level playing field with a guy with 1 share. You put your money up, you increase your risk, you have more shares, you get a bigger say in how things are run, SIMPLE!!!. I think it was a short sighted way from anyone who thought a vote of one man one vote by SHAREHOLDERS would ever hold water.

Those condoning the board always say the same thing.

"In what other business...it is normal business practice..." blah blah.

Gibberish

Fact - it’s NOT any other business.

It’s football - an irrational, illogical, emotional business and the usual rules simply don’t apply.

Here’s a hypothetical (but possible!) situation

Newcastle fans all stay at home for their next home game.

Question.

If that happened, do you think Mike Ashley would be sitting alone in the stands with his majority shares thinking "doesn’t bother me...I’m the majority shareholder"?

If you want to talk about ’good business’, explain how it’s good business to constantly lie to your ’customers.

To make and break promises to them.

If any other big business does this, the press are usually all over them (remember the hoover flights?) and some company spokesman is forced to apologize for the lies.

You can’t be selective, you can’t have SOME of the rules that apply to business (ie: the ones that suit your piss-poor, black & white argument) but not the ones you don’t like.

At the most basic level, a good businessman becomes successful because he listens to customers.

He also makes an attempt to look honest.

When he doesn’t, 99 times out of a hundred, the customers (to use a business expression) ’do one’.

If the clowns currently ’in charge’ at Everton remain (and get their way), it is my opinion that eventually there’ll be ’to let’ signs stuck to a mid-range kip of a ground in Kirkby, swiftly followed by...

’Lot 75 - the shirt worn by Gordon West in the 1966 Football Association Cup Final. The bidding starts at..."

Et-bleedin’-cetera.

’Moomin Papa’ - The Fast Show’s Colin Hunt.

Guaranteed!

("Geddit? Office trolly?...Colin Hunt’s office trolly!?")

If I had a name like Moomin Papa, I would be clinically depressed.

Some of us are reaching that state of mind for the following reason; If DK was affordable(?), architecturally and aesthetically stunning(?) and likely to enhance our attractiveness to a potential investor(?), some of us would still not see its value if we cannot get to or from the stadium without the skills of Napoleon marshalling the Grand Armee around Europe.

Wasn’t Moomin Papa, the name of one of the people on Royston Vasey?

Dave, you will sign your contract.

Kenwright couldn't get his act together to raise £30 mil for the kings dock and its supposedly going to cost Everton £78 mil for Kirkby? He wont sell the blues,unless he gets something out of it and no one will buy us because of the fucked up state we are in... ?Just a fan like the rest of us? ? my fucking arse!

Some good points from various people, yes Everton is a business and yes, they, the board, are there to make a profit for that business and yes I understand why the board demanded a poll but there?s a but, in fact quite a few buts.

All football clubs have a fanatical following, why? To be perfectly honest I don?t know the definitive answer to this; it could be something in the genes, possibly a deep-seated need for identity and the sense of belonging. Fans follow their club through thick and thin, through the good times and the bad. At Everton they can even buy shares to demonstrate their affiliation to their club, not for profit, not for personal gain, just because they?re Evertonians and they have an interest in the long-term welfare of their club. It?s been like this at Everton for many years, its shareholders association, formed in 1938, is the oldest in the world.

Everton is a business and like other businesses they have their customers. They rely on the support of tens of thousands of fans, their customers, to purchase season tickets, match tickets and support the commercial activities surrounding the Everton brand, but, unlike other businesses these customers are life long devotees, some third, forth, fifth even sixth generation supporters that have an emotional attachment to the club and if they don?t like something they demonstrate their dislike as best they can. This is not unique, look at Liverpool, look at Newcastle; Everton supporters may be a little more conservative and perhaps not as demonstrative as others but their passion about their club is unquestionable.

A business, as opposed to a charity, is run with the aim of posting a profit. But, many football clubs don?t and here Everton is no exception. Excluding the year in which Wayne Rooney was sold, a year when the banks had already appointed administrators, Everton has continued to under perform financially. Continued losses and a total lack of investment have contributed to the financial dilemma that Everton finds itself in today. The new accounts are no different, Bill Kenwright explained at the EGM that whilst they managed to make a small operating profit, last year, the club overall still made a loss of £8, 9 or 10 million, he couldn?t recall the exact figure. These continued losses and the complete lack of outside investment provide compelling evidence that the club needs to generate additional funds through being facility led as opposed to having a rich benefactor. A stadium that is capable of generating significantly higher revenues, far greater than the £800k / event currently available through Goodison, is a prerequisite, but it is not the only consideration. The stadium must be of a design, capability and in a location that facilitates the capacity of the site to maximise its ability to generate revenue.

On Wednesday evening 700 shareholders were packed into Goodison to witness the Everton board respond to its critics over the proposed move to Kirkby. Sadly, in my opinion, what we witnessed was a flagrant attempt to avoid that criticism and misrepresent the feelings at the meeting.

When it came to answering questions they were left wanting, the transport plan is evidently woefully inadequate and shareholders were rightfully concerned when they discovered the plan includes a provision to have thousands of Evertonians placed in holding pens prior to being ?crush loaded? on to trains. The club?s transport expert was completely out of her depth. Time and time again people asked questions but were given nothing.

To ask a question, unlike at other meetings when you could stay in your seat and use a radio mic, you had to stand at a podium in front of the board, Robert Elstone, David Moyes, the panel of experts and the 700 shareholders; quite intimidating for those unaccustomed to public speaking.

I asked a question, I approached the podium with some trepidation; my question surrounded the projected cost of the Kirkby stadium and where the finance will come from, it was backed up by data from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Building Costs Information Service), it indicated that the projected stadium cost at the moment is, if construction began in 2010 after inquiries and delays, £151M, meaning that Everton?s contribution, seeing that the cross-subsidy from Tesco is highly unlikely to increase, will have risen by 27% from £78M to £99M. Amazingly Robert Elstone couldn?t confirm the cost of the Kirkby stadium or confirm where Everton?s increased contribution could come from yet Robert Elstone had earlier stated that ?going beyond the £78M will be challenging and that it would be no good having a stadium that we can?t afford? he had also been able to wax lyrical about the prohibitive cost, to Everton, of redeveloping Goodison down to specific costs of individual stands and potential revenue loss during construction. His presentation suggested that the Bullens redevelopment alone would cost almost as much as the complete cost of constructing the £90M Kirkby stadium. Yet he couldn?t confirm a single projection figure for Kirkby. My last question was reserved for the chairman, I asked ?do you believe that you still hold a mandate when it is clear that information given to obtain that mandate was inaccurate?? Bill Kenwright appeared to be answering another question so I reminded him of what I had asked by restating the question, he wouldn?t answer, he simply stated that they weren?t misled.

The rest of the night was similarly conducted, the leader of the council walked away from the podium after he challenged Sir Philip Carter whom had reiterated a story about the Everton and the council, he received no answer. Joe Anderson gave a rousing speech during which he challenged the board to work with the council; the assembled shareholders loudly applauded but Bill Kenwright simply answered that the door was always open.

The vote on the resolution had been vigorously disputed; the KEIOC lawyers, acting on instructions, had argued that a show of hands should be allowed. This is the primary method of voting as described in Everton?s Articles of Association, only if demanded, prior to the decision being taken, will a poll be conducted. The board, fearing defeat, quite correctly, exercised their right to conduct a poll in preference to a show of hands. Who wouldn?t avoid a costly defeat?

On the night it was estimated by Tony Bennett and Mark Grayson, who were present at the count, that the vote in the room was in favour of the resolution by a sixty / forty margin, they requested that this information be released but this was declined by the Everton solicitor. It has now emerged that the margin was closer to seventy / thirty.

It was disappointing yet again, if not totally unexpected, that the local media misreported the proceedings, David Prentice inexplicably reported that all questions were answered and that for every concern there was an explanation, you will be in a position to decide for yourselves when the transcript appears soon on the KEIOC website.

Far more disappointing is yesterdays claim by Robert Elstone when he claims a continued mandate, from the vote, to persist with Destination Kirkby, are the club so insecure with this project that they have to spin everything? Obviously Robert Elstone is there to do a job for the board but it?s unacceptable that he has so quickly followed his predecessor. Many fans will be disappointed in his statement.

Unlike accusations to the contrary, many Evertonians attended the EGM because they have genuine concerns about the chosen location, suitability, affordability, the long-term sustainability of the proposed Kirkby stadium and its ability to provide the manager with sufficient funds to compete in the EPL. Notwithstanding the media spin, those concerns, backed up by a 70/30 vote in favour of the proposal on the night, remain.

The story of David and Goliath springs to mind. In the cold light of day the minority shareholders can claim a moral victory of sorts, the shareholders have fired a warning shot across the bows of the board, that?s the same board who were told that the figures presented to the fans during the ballot didn?t add up, the same board that were repeatedly told that the application would be called in and the same board that have now been told, once again, that in the unlikely event that the application is approved they don?t appear to be able to raise almost £100M and that they desperately need to develop an achievable, deliverable and affordable contingency plan. The ball is now firmly in their court after the Council?s invitation, it would a dereliction of duty if they refused to develop that contingency plan.

Colin

Can you help me in the cause of openness and giving an honest answer to some questions?

Where does the funding come from for KEIOC?

Do you have or do you any accounts or list of donors that you publish?

Do you have a vetting process to ensure that any members, supporters or donors are doing so in the best interests of the club rather than their own self interest?

Are any of local business who benefit financially from having Everton nearby involved in KEIOC?

Have any of above mentioned business ever made a donation to KEIOC

It just the plane, your lawyers etc all that comes from race nights?

Kev,
I have met most of the members of KEIOC over the past year, and as far as I know NONE have any vested or commercial interest in Everton remaining in Walton. Meanwhile, Colin has posted about issues/concerns that will affect the whole future of Everton Football club..... surely these are of far greater importance than any inferred ulterior motives of KEIOC? Given the points raised I find your concerns startlingly misplaced. However, as far as lawyers are concerned you might be surprised to find that membership of this group include professionals from all walks of life........ including Law and even amateur aviators ;)

Tom



KEIOC has every right to make their case and I think they do it in a constructive manner. However, when you are a ?pressure group? I think my questions are very fair and not at all ?startling?

It came to my mind when I was served in the County Café and all the women working their were wearing KEIOC tee-shirts. I asked them if they were going to the game and they said no, some where even Reds. No why would they be supporting KEIOC?

I still think given the nature of the campaign taken on by KEIOC my questions are more than fair and deserving of a clear answer.

I have to take issue that the issues raised by KEIOC being so important that you would turn a blind eye to some commercial interest other than Everton?s being at play, as is inferred in your answer.

That is a good example that some people are loosing a sense of perspective, even you. Now that I do find ?startlingly misplaced?

No problem Kev, but as Tom has explained the issues in the post are the real concerns here.

1) The funding received by KEIOC is derived from donations from fans, shareholders, prominent Evertonians and other fan organisations against the relocation of the club to Kirkby. Basically you probably sit by someone at the match who?s donated to the cause. Some just a few pounds others thousands.

2) We don?t have a need to publish a list of donators, we simply thank them when we receive the donation through pay pal or direct. If they wish to make their generosity public they?re more than welcome to.

3) I?m unaware of any person or organisation donating that has a vested interest, but to be honest it so expensive and time consuming running the campaign I?d take their money!

4) No business that benefits from having Everton nearby is involved in KEIOC; in fact no business whatsoever is involved in KEIOC.

5) None of the above businesses has ever donated to KEIOC; more?s the pity

6) Not just from race nights, as I said donations are received from fans, shareholders etc, in fact we received donations during the EGM.

The tee shirts were distributed free of charge to all pub and café staff around the ground as a method of promoting the group and the campaign, we sold a further 250 and donated some to a charitable cause which I think was in Africa but I?m not 100% sure.

We?re thinking of printing more tee shirts, car stickers and badges.

I hope this answers your questions and I look forward to receiving your donation through our website!!!!

The matter of Kev being served in Walton by KEIOC T-shirt wearing girls in the cafe brings to mind the speech from the lad at the EGM about regeneration at Kirkby consigning Walton to the dustbin. All of us, I’m sure, would support wholeheartedly the SUSTAINABLE regneration of Kirkby (of any area), but not regeneration at any cost which might (will) include the abandonment of Walton. There’s a double-whammy there - regeneration in Kirkby would be at the expense of the people of both Kirkby (thanks for the free land and the use of your town once a fortnight!) and Walton (sorry, you’ll have to fill the economic blackhole and the loss of some semblance of community vitality yourselves), thanks to Leahy, Round, Elstone and all who support them. Shame!

Colin, thanks very much for taking the time to answer.

Kev,
"Startlingly misplaced concerns" refers to ignoring the littany of lies (all long since proven) supporting Destination Kirkby yet taking issue with t-shirt wearing cafe staff. Even if KEIOC were funded by a terrorist organisation this could not detract from the funfamentally flawed DK, and misgivings regarding the decision-making process (if you could call it that) to date. Even if KEIOC owned every pub and cafe in Walton it would not make Kirkby’s transport strategy work, nor the stadium cost nowt as originally promised. That is the only "perspective" that will reflect the true influence of their outcomes on the future of our club. Hence the EGM, and the vote by those present against Kirkby....

I am totally sick of the codswallop that comes from the club.

Another Clear Mandate my backside.

Not from all the shareholders, mainly just three whose idea and vested interests are secured.

PR crap again, and before anyone says thats how a company is run, the club, the chairman and the major shareholders missed an opportunity to be honest at each key point.

Solidarity in the face honest people who want their concerns answered.
Kenwrights " the door is always open" to LCC is a lie. As long as the exclusitivity agreement stays in place that door is nailed shut.

The is a strong probability that DK enquiry could either curtail or reject the entire Tesco project at the expense of the club. Where then Bill? Back to the council?

Its not a question of whats fair, we all know life isn’t fair, but its a question of doing whats right, thats what many Evertonians want to see from the board.

The acting CEO states that Kirkby was the only viable option on the table. He is right, it was. Because nothing else was ever really considered and never will be until the scheme fails. In the end the board has started to believe its own hype.

There are always alternatives in business. Its just that for some people alternatives are not as personally profitable as others. For the CLUB there has to be a better solution

So cut my words and meanings as you may, but remember Everton FC is not JUST a business, Everton FC is not JUST owned by a few greedy men, Everton FC belongs to every fan, every one past, present and future.

The suits can keep the business but we have the heart of the club