The Mail Bag
General Meetings
Comments (86)
Am I right in thinking that the mandate for calling a General Meeting has just been changed from support 20% of shareholders to 10% of shareholding?
Talk about moving the goalposts and gagging your critics. Were BK and Co THAT afraid of the fans who opposed them at the EGM that they had to unleash the lawyers to find a way around people voicing their criticism? If so, then it's a sad, sad day for Everton Football Club. Even if it does "bring us in line" with most other Premier League Clubs, the motives behind it are sickening at best.
Mark Wynne, Posted 10/09/2008 at 12:12:55
Comments
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
Michael Kenrick
Got to agree with you, Mark. The EGMs may not achieve much but at least they provide an opportunity for issues to be (in theory) raised by concerned shareholders and discussed with members of the Board... As the EGM Transcript showed, that is not quite what happened last week, with the Board successfully resisting any pressure to change course. This step merely confirms the intransigence that was set in place form Day 1 through the Exclusivity Agreement.
Agree with both of you.... the first act of Robert Enstone, it seems, is to gag the little people in the People?s Club.
Whilst the club has reacted badly, it’s reason is justifiable given that there was a threat to call repeated EGMs until the small shareholders got their way. The immaturity of those who made that claim, and it has happened at other clubs, must take a share of the blame.
You don?t think then that this change has anything to do with the alleged plans for calling an EGM every month until a hand vote about DK is agreed? If this was allowed to happen it would cause a great deal of embarrasment for both the club and us as fans. Not to mention the cost and inconvenience it would cause to the people who try to run the club.
Couldn?t agree more John. Let?s move on and regain some sanity for the rest of the season. I for one am sick and tired of the constant whinging and moaning constantly aired on this web site. Enough is enough.
Mark,
Sounds about right, but what gets to me as well is the willingness of the local media no to ignore the spin. The line they take actually encourages the move to Kirkby. Funny that you?d think they?d play a greater part in keeping the club in the city.
But then again the Liverpool Echo and the Liverpool Daily Post are moving to Oldham near Manchester, so I guess it would be non-productive of them to highlight the fact that a move out of the city may well be bad news.
Sounds about right, but what gets to me as well is the willingness of the local media no to ignore the spin. The line they take actually encourages the move to Kirkby. Funny that you?d think they?d play a greater part in keeping the club in the city.
But then again the Liverpool Echo and the Liverpool Daily Post are moving to Oldham near Manchester, so I guess it would be non-productive of them to highlight the fact that a move out of the city may well be bad news.
Disdain for ?minor? shareholders is nothing new at Goodison, I assure you. In the early seventies, the Chairman of the Shareholders Association ? I think his name was Parry ? presented a petition on Derby ticket allocation to the then Secretary of the Club, Bill Dickinson. Old Bill was less than impressed. ?Bloody shareholders!, he exclaimed, ?they think they own the Club!?
Of course, they didn?t then ? and they don?t now. The more things change, the more they stay the same! That?s my Everton.
I?m absolutely delighted by this move. We simply can't have a minority of shareholders abusing their positions by frivilously calling ongoing EGM?s until they get what THEY want - never mind what the fans think or the majority of the shareholders. Now they?ve been put in their place and the club is only falling into line with many other clubs anyway. Well done EFC.
You can't blame the club, some of the nonsense we had to listen to the other night (mostly from non-shareholders who had scrounged proxy votes) was ludicrous.
If people outside the club were to hear the bleating of half pissed up morons asking what bus they were supposed to get to Kirkby on, we?d be laughed out of the league.
If people outside the club were to hear the bleating of half pissed up morons asking what bus they were supposed to get to Kirkby on, we?d be laughed out of the league.
In fairness I wonder how the old and new rules on EGMs compare with other football clubs and other corporations in general. I know that one shareholder who wanted to force Tesco to discuss labor practices at an AGM needed 200 shareholders with at least 2,000 share each. Incidentally, perhaps the anti-Kirkby lobby, having failed to change Everton’s position, should focus on changing Tesco’s.
Michael
The theory of an EGM is not for shareholders to raise issues that they are concerned about. An AGM is the vehicle for those issues to be raised.
By definition an EGM is for something that comes into the category of extraordinary. Minor shareholders who weren?t happy with the board?s direction manipulated this process to force an EGM when it wasn?t warranted.
There had already been a vote on this issue, yes I know what you?re going to say about the vote, but even if the vote had gone the other way, the board are not legally compelled to follow the outcome of that vote in any event.
If we were going to be subjected to an EGM every month or so, the club would have been a laughing stock.
The theory of an EGM is not for shareholders to raise issues that they are concerned about. An AGM is the vehicle for those issues to be raised.
By definition an EGM is for something that comes into the category of extraordinary. Minor shareholders who weren?t happy with the board?s direction manipulated this process to force an EGM when it wasn?t warranted.
There had already been a vote on this issue, yes I know what you?re going to say about the vote, but even if the vote had gone the other way, the board are not legally compelled to follow the outcome of that vote in any event.
If we were going to be subjected to an EGM every month or so, the club would have been a laughing stock.
This really depends on what side of the story you are. From a club perspective, I can understand them not wanting an EGM every month or so, as some minor shareholders had announced.
On the other hand it is sad to see that this ’democratic’ option is thrown away as soon as the actions of the board are questioned. It is typical gerrymandering, if the opponent scores to much goals, let’s move the goal posts!
On the other hand it is sad to see that this ’democratic’ option is thrown away as soon as the actions of the board are questioned. It is typical gerrymandering, if the opponent scores to much goals, let’s move the goal posts!
Quite simply, what did you expect? Wouldn?t anybody in their position do what they have just done. They would be incompetent if they didn?t.
There may have been other clubs who have given non-shareholders a vote in a major policy decision, but I don?t know who they were. And the season-ticket holders voted for the move to Kirkby ? didn?t they? Everton Football Club ? like any other ? isn?t a democracy. If you don?t sit in the director?s box, you pay at the gate.
There may have been other clubs who have given non-shareholders a vote in a major policy decision, but I don?t know who they were. And the season-ticket holders voted for the move to Kirkby ? didn?t they? Everton Football Club ? like any other ? isn?t a democracy. If you don?t sit in the director?s box, you pay at the gate.
The club were effectively threatened or blackmailed depending on your point of view. KEIOC/Mark had clearly drawn a line in the sand that the board had to give in to them or they would call and EGM every week. This would hurt the club, financially, affect morale, damage the clubs reputation and cause ill-feeling. It would also be a complete mockery of the law by using the EGM tool as a blunt instrument to thwart the democratic rights of the board.
The real shame is that the minority shareholders have been totally disenfranchised by the ill-thought actions of a few.
How is KEIOC going to proceed is the big question?
The real shame is that the minority shareholders have been totally disenfranchised by the ill-thought actions of a few.
How is KEIOC going to proceed is the big question?
How some people can come on here and rubbish the valiant action of a large number of concerned Blues is beyond me.
The questions asked of the board were very reasonable and mostly professionally put.
The megolomaniac just didn't like his erroneous judgement to be questioned.
Blue Bill my arse.
The questions asked of the board were very reasonable and mostly professionally put.
The megolomaniac just didn't like his erroneous judgement to be questioned.
Blue Bill my arse.
Sensible decsion by the club....
stops any bleating work shy wasters from having their moment of fame....
EGM my fat arse....
Bill Kenwright... keep up the good work Sir... I salute you.
stops any bleating work shy wasters from having their moment of fame....
EGM my fat arse....
Bill Kenwright... keep up the good work Sir... I salute you.
Before I start I have to say that I see both sides of this. I don?t know what decision (regarding DK) is right for EFC.
However, it is a great shame that the minor shareholders appear happy and willing to abuse the position they are in by threatening to call an EGM every month or so - how ridiculous.
I understand the reasons for calling one initially and think that it was the right thing to do but, having called it, what possible reason could they have for threatening to call one as often as possible to try and get their own way? It is well documented how the votes were cast and therefor it is rendered impossible to get an outcome that they (the minor shareholders) desired.
As it has already been said, an AGM is for all the general enquiries as to what is happening at the club and that will still apply but, thanks to the threats of the few, they have now had a very useful power removed and forced the club to close ranks further.
I don?t blame the club in any way for the decision, threatened with EGM after EGM, they were left with no choice; due to the legal side of running a business which is after all what EFC is they would have had no choice but to convene one.
As I said I don?t know what is right but this is surely the time to sit back and see what happens with the enquiry... After all, it might get blocked anyway so all this will have been for nothing!
However, it is a great shame that the minor shareholders appear happy and willing to abuse the position they are in by threatening to call an EGM every month or so - how ridiculous.
I understand the reasons for calling one initially and think that it was the right thing to do but, having called it, what possible reason could they have for threatening to call one as often as possible to try and get their own way? It is well documented how the votes were cast and therefor it is rendered impossible to get an outcome that they (the minor shareholders) desired.
As it has already been said, an AGM is for all the general enquiries as to what is happening at the club and that will still apply but, thanks to the threats of the few, they have now had a very useful power removed and forced the club to close ranks further.
I don?t blame the club in any way for the decision, threatened with EGM after EGM, they were left with no choice; due to the legal side of running a business which is after all what EFC is they would have had no choice but to convene one.
As I said I don?t know what is right but this is surely the time to sit back and see what happens with the enquiry... After all, it might get blocked anyway so all this will have been for nothing!
Suprise, suprise the Maddens and Laphams of the world come on here to praise dear Bill for another wonderful decision.
The minor shareholders have every right to ask difficult questions of the club. You only have to read the transcript of the EGM to see those asking questions where FAR more knowledgeable about the reality of transport, finance, cost of materials than those giving answers.
I am bewildered that there appear to be so many Everton fans who are happy that the Tottenham fans, London based businessmen and pensioners who make up our board have severed the lines of communication with the normal fans that make up our minor shareholders.
Kirkby simply will not happen, we’ve wasted £2m already, the land value of Goodison and Bellefield has fallen 25% minimum in the last year and the economic downturn means naming rights will be worth less and less.
Give up and sell up.
The minor shareholders have every right to ask difficult questions of the club. You only have to read the transcript of the EGM to see those asking questions where FAR more knowledgeable about the reality of transport, finance, cost of materials than those giving answers.
I am bewildered that there appear to be so many Everton fans who are happy that the Tottenham fans, London based businessmen and pensioners who make up our board have severed the lines of communication with the normal fans that make up our minor shareholders.
Kirkby simply will not happen, we’ve wasted £2m already, the land value of Goodison and Bellefield has fallen 25% minimum in the last year and the economic downturn means naming rights will be worth less and less.
Give up and sell up.
Perhaps all those minority shareholders who issued proxies would like to come on here and explain why each one of them couldn?t attend such an "important" EGM.
I?m a bemused spectator but couldn?t it be argued that the number of contentious issues that are now upon us have been the reason for EGMs popping up like spring daffodils?
They called one about the Ground Move and were told to stick rigidly to that line of questioning, although Kenwright veered off course to bring up ownership (and before you say its related, if that?s the case, then why isn?t the mismanagement of the club also related, as I?d say that?s why we really have to now "move or die")
Anyway, they were told they would not be allowed to ask about past CEOs or how the club is run. Therefore, given the obvious concerns, weren?t the minority shareholders backed into a corner to call more/specific EGM?s as the only means of getting answers available to them?
They called one about the Ground Move and were told to stick rigidly to that line of questioning, although Kenwright veered off course to bring up ownership (and before you say its related, if that?s the case, then why isn?t the mismanagement of the club also related, as I?d say that?s why we really have to now "move or die")
Anyway, they were told they would not be allowed to ask about past CEOs or how the club is run. Therefore, given the obvious concerns, weren?t the minority shareholders backed into a corner to call more/specific EGM?s as the only means of getting answers available to them?
Brendan, whatever the subtle distinctions regarding AGMs/EGMs, the club has demonstraded in these meetings its own willingness to depart from the established protocols for their own ends. However, that should be no surorise... ?t was ever thus!!!
But what was a surprise to the Club, I believe, was the ability of Mark and Tony to pull this EGM off in the first place. Without checking, I think it was the Head of Communications who confidently predicted there would be no EGM... only to be proved quite wrong.
Now, as to whether the EGM is actually a useful or meaningful excercise... there are those who justify last week?s fiasco as a means of sticking it to the despised figures who control the club, which is of course sad.
Unfortunately, though, I believe it is the dogged intransigence and stubbornness to consider any alternate "input" once minds are made up (probably on both sides) that is the biggest barrier.
So much for the Age of The Internet and the Free Exchange of Information for The Enlightenment of us All... Stop laughing at the back!
But what was a surprise to the Club, I believe, was the ability of Mark and Tony to pull this EGM off in the first place. Without checking, I think it was the Head of Communications who confidently predicted there would be no EGM... only to be proved quite wrong.
Now, as to whether the EGM is actually a useful or meaningful excercise... there are those who justify last week?s fiasco as a means of sticking it to the despised figures who control the club, which is of course sad.
Unfortunately, though, I believe it is the dogged intransigence and stubbornness to consider any alternate "input" once minds are made up (probably on both sides) that is the biggest barrier.
So much for the Age of The Internet and the Free Exchange of Information for The Enlightenment of us All... Stop laughing at the back!
It surely isn't surprising that the club have taken this step given the ridiculous threat to call EGM after EGM.
Why don't KEIOC campaign to have Kirkby brought under the control of Liverpool City Council?
Why don't KEIOC campaign to have Kirkby brought under the control of Liverpool City Council?
Maybe the reason why the board have done this, is that the EGM made them feel very uncomfortable, because DK was shown for what it is, a complete sham. Maybe they were worried, because other questions would be asked, what happened with Wyness etc. Instead of calling these people silly, because they were going to keep calling for more EGMs, maybe you should look at the other option, that the board were just shit scared, that other things they do not want to us to know, concerning DK, may be revealed.
What a joke! Reading some of the shite some people are posting eg. "Keep up the good work, Bill, we salute you" ? must be a red taking the piss.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN FOR ONE MINUTE THINK KENWRIGHT IS DOING A GOOD JOB.
The only thing he?ll do for us is take us to the end of some wasteland in the middle of nowhere, then waltz off with a tidy profit and leave a half-empty shed of a ground behind him.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN FOR ONE MINUTE THINK KENWRIGHT IS DOING A GOOD JOB.
The only thing he?ll do for us is take us to the end of some wasteland in the middle of nowhere, then waltz off with a tidy profit and leave a half-empty shed of a ground behind him.
I wonder would a supporters ?strike? and ?protest? make an impact. If they lost revenue from a busy month from anti-Kirkby supporters say even ? 5,000 less a game ? would they start paying attention to popular opinion?
Hit them in the pocket.
Hit them in the pocket.
Mr Kenrick, in response to your fatous editorialising. I read the transcript in full. Most of the anti-Kirkby rent-a-mob didn?t appear to ask questions. They made speeches. Of course the board resisted pressure to change course. They have no realistic alternative ? and neither do the anti-DK brigade. Or did you expect the KEIOC lot to take the floor, and with all their technical, financial and business acumen on display, the scales simply drop from the board?s eyes and BK say, "Oh, I see now. OK then, we?ll bin Kirkby!"?
You, rather pompously state: "This step merely confirms the intransigence that was set in place from Day 1 through the Exclusivity Agreement."
As BK stated, or maybe you have selective reading problems, any viable alternative proposal to rival moving to Kirkby will be looked at. If Mr Billionaire was to come to Goodison and make a better offer than Tesco?s of course the board would look at it, irrespective of any "exclusivity" agreement. That?s the real world. To paraphrase General De Gaul, agreements are like roses ? they last as long as they last.
Quite frankly the EGM sounded like a waste of hot air. Good on the club for silencing what are, for the most part, a group of self-indulgent nay-sayers.
Brendan: "There had already been a vote on this issue"
Yes, there had, but if you read the literature accompanying Mark and Tony?s petition to shareholders you?d know that the EGM was called precisely because what ended up in the planning application for Destination Kirkby was so far removed from what was presented at the time of the ballot and that the transport component in particular was fundamentally flawed.
In that sense ? and this would be in part reply to Pat Domingo ? the EGM was important and, far from being a "waste of hot air", was highly illuminating because it showed that neither the Board nor its so-called experts have a firm grasp of the problems associated with getting fans to and from the plastidome under the current plans.
Acknowledging that the transport aspect has huge problems, Kenwright even went so far as to invite supporters to propose improvements to the existing plans. If that were the only thing that came out of the EGM ? which it wasn?t ? then it served its purpose.
Yes, there had, but if you read the literature accompanying Mark and Tony?s petition to shareholders you?d know that the EGM was called precisely because what ended up in the planning application for Destination Kirkby was so far removed from what was presented at the time of the ballot and that the transport component in particular was fundamentally flawed.
In that sense ? and this would be in part reply to Pat Domingo ? the EGM was important and, far from being a "waste of hot air", was highly illuminating because it showed that neither the Board nor its so-called experts have a firm grasp of the problems associated with getting fans to and from the plastidome under the current plans.
Acknowledging that the transport aspect has huge problems, Kenwright even went so far as to invite supporters to propose improvements to the existing plans. If that were the only thing that came out of the EGM ? which it wasn?t ? then it served its purpose.
Thankfully someone has the balls to stand up and point out the inadequacies of this travesty of a proposal before we end up with complete chaos at Kirkby train station at the first home game at Planet Hollywood Park.
Calling them "self-indulgent naysayers" is an insult from someone who seems quite content to be served up a half-baked scheme for the future home of their club.
There are some very short memories amongst those who talk about the "mis-management" of the club by Bill Kenwright. When he took over from Johnson we only had an annual relegation scrap to look forward to. Now we are qualifying for europe more often than not. He recruited Moyes (who a lot of people didn?t fancy at the time) and we are buying players for £10m+. And like it or not, the deal with Tesco (even if it costs us £78m) would still be a very cheap stadium.
As for buyers, I?ve seen more of the Yeti & the loch ness monster than any of these Billionaires that some cranks would have you believe Kenwright is holding off.
Where Tesco go we go, cos they are picking up the lions share of the bill. I?d rather be in bed with Tesco than face the £300m ball and chain the red shite have got coming. Now there?s mis management.
As for buyers, I?ve seen more of the Yeti & the loch ness monster than any of these Billionaires that some cranks would have you believe Kenwright is holding off.
Where Tesco go we go, cos they are picking up the lions share of the bill. I?d rather be in bed with Tesco than face the £300m ball and chain the red shite have got coming. Now there?s mis management.
This is a bit off topic, but in response to Pat Domingo...
You are correct that BK said any viable alternative proposal to rival moving to Kirkby will be looked at. What he didn?t say was that as Chairman of Everton Football Club, he, his board and executives have worked, and would continue to work, to generate such proposals either themselves or with other partners.
After being a leader in football and football stadium innovation for over 100 years, Everton FC is now reduced to asking others to come up with stadium proposals. We are not leading, we are being led. It is Tesco which is driving the DK project, and it will thus be Tesco which derives most benefit from it.
If we want a stadium proposal to suit our needs, one which benefits us, we need a leader at the club who will set out what our needs are and set out to fulfil them.
Read the transcript again, Tesco didn?t come to us and say "hey, we?ve got this plan for a retail park in Kirkby, if you want to get a stadium into the plans, come up with a design". Tesco came to us with a stadium design built into the plans.
Why would they do that? What benefit does it bring them? Are Tesco known as massive football benefactors?
No, they are doing it because without a football stadium, they had zero chance of getting planning permission. We?ve gone from the most innovative club in English football to a planning enabler for a supermarket.
You are correct that BK said any viable alternative proposal to rival moving to Kirkby will be looked at. What he didn?t say was that as Chairman of Everton Football Club, he, his board and executives have worked, and would continue to work, to generate such proposals either themselves or with other partners.
After being a leader in football and football stadium innovation for over 100 years, Everton FC is now reduced to asking others to come up with stadium proposals. We are not leading, we are being led. It is Tesco which is driving the DK project, and it will thus be Tesco which derives most benefit from it.
If we want a stadium proposal to suit our needs, one which benefits us, we need a leader at the club who will set out what our needs are and set out to fulfil them.
Read the transcript again, Tesco didn?t come to us and say "hey, we?ve got this plan for a retail park in Kirkby, if you want to get a stadium into the plans, come up with a design". Tesco came to us with a stadium design built into the plans.
Why would they do that? What benefit does it bring them? Are Tesco known as massive football benefactors?
No, they are doing it because without a football stadium, they had zero chance of getting planning permission. We?ve gone from the most innovative club in English football to a planning enabler for a supermarket.
Cardiff City have just got on with their new stadium. It has a supermarket attached and is about 4 miles outside of the city. We are not the first and won?t be the last.
Sometimes beggars cannot be choosers. Those who hesitate have lost.
It might not be perfect but that should be the major debate. "How to improve DK" before it?s too late!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sometimes beggars cannot be choosers. Those who hesitate have lost.
It might not be perfect but that should be the major debate. "How to improve DK" before it?s too late!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
James Asquith:
I think you?ll find the board have done what they intended to do. They?ve found a scheme, they think it?s the best for the club and they are firmly backing it.
Why do they need to do this all over again. Because a MINORITY of those fans who could be ARSED to vote didn?t get the result they wanted.
I don?t want Everton to leave Goodison. However, I have yet to see one, sane, deliverable, affordable alternative to DK.
When that gets presented to the board, you know what ? they might just take it.
I think you?ll find the board have done what they intended to do. They?ve found a scheme, they think it?s the best for the club and they are firmly backing it.
Why do they need to do this all over again. Because a MINORITY of those fans who could be ARSED to vote didn?t get the result they wanted.
I don?t want Everton to leave Goodison. However, I have yet to see one, sane, deliverable, affordable alternative to DK.
When that gets presented to the board, you know what ? they might just take it.
Dear James,
I am absolutely thrilled. After reading your piece I am pleased to report that you have finally got it.
We are ?..a planning enabler for a supermarket.? You now understand that we can have a stadium in Kirkby because we are being given £50 odd million and £20 odd millions pounds worth of free land and £10-£15 million in profit reduction.
In other words, the only reason we are getting this stadium is that we are getting a massive financial contribution.
I also take exception with your comment that we need a stadium proposal that ?benefits us.? A 50,000-seater Uefa stadium purpose-built that may need us to only fund up to £30 million in long term debt doesn?t benefit us??????
By the way, Tesco came to us with a preliminary stadium design because our basic needs were pretty obvious to man and dog. Not to hard to work out, 50,000 seats hopefully facing the pitch, a space for a pitch. As developers who needed an enabler they needed to work the costings out to generate a plan and a budget, hence they put a design forward. Pretty sensible really for serious developers.
As for Tesco and this zero chance of planning permission, they?ve now bought most of the town centre, they can actually rehash the plans and get planning permission quite simply.
Tesco are not charitable although the deal seems to have charity attached to it. The relationship is symbiotic and we both benefit equally, is that so hard to see?
As a business deal it is superb for us. There is no deal to be had a Goodison Park, that?s dreamland. Put simply we cannot finance the redevelopment. Even the RS cannot finance a ground....
We possibly could have a city centre site but we need a willing developer as a partner to chip in the odd £70 million and the acquiescence of LCC..... The club hasn?t found such a partner.
So after being a leader in stadium innovation for over 100 years.... ( think you got your figures wrong, we?ve been overtaken quite a few years back).... we are once again leaders in innovation. We have now been the most innovative club in the land in finding a way to get a new-build 50,000-seater for circa £30 million debt.
I am absolutely thrilled. After reading your piece I am pleased to report that you have finally got it.
We are ?..a planning enabler for a supermarket.? You now understand that we can have a stadium in Kirkby because we are being given £50 odd million and £20 odd millions pounds worth of free land and £10-£15 million in profit reduction.
In other words, the only reason we are getting this stadium is that we are getting a massive financial contribution.
I also take exception with your comment that we need a stadium proposal that ?benefits us.? A 50,000-seater Uefa stadium purpose-built that may need us to only fund up to £30 million in long term debt doesn?t benefit us??????
By the way, Tesco came to us with a preliminary stadium design because our basic needs were pretty obvious to man and dog. Not to hard to work out, 50,000 seats hopefully facing the pitch, a space for a pitch. As developers who needed an enabler they needed to work the costings out to generate a plan and a budget, hence they put a design forward. Pretty sensible really for serious developers.
As for Tesco and this zero chance of planning permission, they?ve now bought most of the town centre, they can actually rehash the plans and get planning permission quite simply.
Tesco are not charitable although the deal seems to have charity attached to it. The relationship is symbiotic and we both benefit equally, is that so hard to see?
As a business deal it is superb for us. There is no deal to be had a Goodison Park, that?s dreamland. Put simply we cannot finance the redevelopment. Even the RS cannot finance a ground....
We possibly could have a city centre site but we need a willing developer as a partner to chip in the odd £70 million and the acquiescence of LCC..... The club hasn?t found such a partner.
So after being a leader in stadium innovation for over 100 years.... ( think you got your figures wrong, we?ve been overtaken quite a few years back).... we are once again leaders in innovation. We have now been the most innovative club in the land in finding a way to get a new-build 50,000-seater for circa £30 million debt.
Anyone want to buy some shares?
Pat Domingo
I suggest you read the transcript again, count the number of times the board was shamed into silence.
Check the embarrasing response to Warren Bradley
The world and his wife knew the transport issue would be raised, but the board were painfully unprepared and the answers offered up were excruciating.
If the reason for calling this EGM was to expose and humiliate the board for their ignorance on just about every aspect of DK, then surely, it was mission accomplished!!!
I suggest you read the transcript again, count the number of times the board was shamed into silence.
Check the embarrasing response to Warren Bradley
The world and his wife knew the transport issue would be raised, but the board were painfully unprepared and the answers offered up were excruciating.
If the reason for calling this EGM was to expose and humiliate the board for their ignorance on just about every aspect of DK, then surely, it was mission accomplished!!!
Mr Laphan do you want some more shares? :-)
Dave Wilson
I was at the meeting, and what was excruciating was the nonsense questions being asked by a crowd of half-wit non-shareholders.
I was at the meeting, and what was excruciating was the nonsense questions being asked by a crowd of half-wit non-shareholders.
Why has it taken Warren Bradley 4 years to get off his arse and start talking??? Cos he?s got nothing! And he knows it. I spoke to Joe Anderson (Labour Leader) after the meeting and he admitted the council have done fuck all to keep Everton in the city. These EGMs get worse and worse and the lack of respect bleated out by individual nobodies and directed at directors who personally UNDERWRITE OUR DEBT is a fucking disgrace.
Dear Mr Martin,
Unfortunately, apart from the pure sentimental value today?s announcement has wiped the value off the shares.... :-)
..thanks for that Mark...
Unfortunately, apart from the pure sentimental value today?s announcement has wiped the value off the shares.... :-)
..thanks for that Mark...
Jim
"Half-wit non-shareholders"? Want to tell me which questions they asked???
Bradley chose to speak because he wanted to expose an untruth told by the board; he did so.
As for respect, that's a two-way thing, Jim, you know that. And the board have shown very little respect for the people you call "individual nobodies"
One more point: The "directors who personally underwrite OUR debt" have become considerably richer on the back of EFC, the "individual nobodies" haven't ? that might well be why they choose not to doff the cap.
"Half-wit non-shareholders"? Want to tell me which questions they asked???
Bradley chose to speak because he wanted to expose an untruth told by the board; he did so.
As for respect, that's a two-way thing, Jim, you know that. And the board have shown very little respect for the people you call "individual nobodies"
One more point: The "directors who personally underwrite OUR debt" have become considerably richer on the back of EFC, the "individual nobodies" haven't ? that might well be why they choose not to doff the cap.
Bloody hell can you check the IP addresses of the people coming on here tonight Mike, Lyndon it would seem that Everton?s communication debt are working overtime on this thread.
Dave
One guy complained that he could currently walk to the game cos he lived in Walton and would have to get a train if we went to Kirkby. Another idiot wanted to know what train got him back to the Wirral???
Can you explain how the board has made money out of Everton???? Because if Kenwright is making money, I can't understand why Blankstone Sington (stockbrokers) still have shares for sale in the club. I would have thought if there?s money to be made out of the blues that BK would have been snapping them up.
You should get one, then you can join us at the AGMs and see how pathetic they are becoming (the transcripts don't do them justice).
One guy complained that he could currently walk to the game cos he lived in Walton and would have to get a train if we went to Kirkby. Another idiot wanted to know what train got him back to the Wirral???
Can you explain how the board has made money out of Everton???? Because if Kenwright is making money, I can't understand why Blankstone Sington (stockbrokers) still have shares for sale in the club. I would have thought if there?s money to be made out of the blues that BK would have been snapping them up.
You should get one, then you can join us at the AGMs and see how pathetic they are becoming (the transcripts don't do them justice).
Dear Dave Wilson,
Bejesus! Now I know why Warren was there....
He ran to the podium... asked something about when the club had met him, BK said him and Warren had been talking privately for some time then deferred to PC about the time when PC was Chairman. PC couldn?t remember.... whilst he was talking out loud Warren ran off.....
I thought he must have forgotten to pay the lad to mind his car???
So that exchange was Warren exposing the truth??? ...and Warren exposed this how?
Had he stayed at the podium perhaps something would have been revealed about something? But then he would have been drawn into discussion about Everton in the City. Otherwise we are left with innuendo and guesswork.....
These Directors who have become considerably richer (did Harry Enfield ghost write for you?) than you.... pray tell how they have gained this enormous wealth off our backs???
I thought they had all bought shares in the club that cost millions, if they had left the money in the bank they would have earned interest, if they bought property they would have earned equity value? As far as I can see since they bought shares the clubs balance sheet value has fallen.
As far as I am aware they take no salaries, no expenses and pay for their seats. So where are they ripping the money out of the club to line their own pockets at our expense?
Bejesus! Now I know why Warren was there....
He ran to the podium... asked something about when the club had met him, BK said him and Warren had been talking privately for some time then deferred to PC about the time when PC was Chairman. PC couldn?t remember.... whilst he was talking out loud Warren ran off.....
I thought he must have forgotten to pay the lad to mind his car???
So that exchange was Warren exposing the truth??? ...and Warren exposed this how?
Had he stayed at the podium perhaps something would have been revealed about something? But then he would have been drawn into discussion about Everton in the City. Otherwise we are left with innuendo and guesswork.....
These Directors who have become considerably richer (did Harry Enfield ghost write for you?) than you.... pray tell how they have gained this enormous wealth off our backs???
I thought they had all bought shares in the club that cost millions, if they had left the money in the bank they would have earned interest, if they bought property they would have earned equity value? As far as I can see since they bought shares the clubs balance sheet value has fallen.
As far as I am aware they take no salaries, no expenses and pay for their seats. So where are they ripping the money out of the club to line their own pockets at our expense?
Colin, you were donig ok there but I think you'll find when BK bought the club it was worth as an asset £20 million. It's now worth at least £80 million. I don't think 3.5% net interest in the bank would equate to the same kind of return. In fact compound it works out over 10 years at £28,211,975.21 and the current property price crash would have seriously dented any returns made on property. So I'm afraid you're on dodgy ground supporting your hero with this topic, my friend.
Jim Rafter, you are either stupid or a liar. I don't really care which... the guy from Wirral had a valid point to make ie, the transport side is not up to anything like it should be, as I am sure you are aware of... but hey, let's all fall down and kiss Bill's arse.
Why did Warren scurry off so early and quickly? Maybe to put out yet another press release about how much he?s looking forward to discussions about groundshare with the ?Sons of Shankly? and ?Reclaim the Kop??
As for that other loony Cllr Anderson, he was against our move to the Kings Dock and complained at that time that the club's ballot of fans was "rigged". He was never out of the Echo, telling us all how disasterous it would be. You couldn't make it up you really couldn't - Warren and Joe or should it be Laurel and Hardy? LOL!!!!
As for that other loony Cllr Anderson, he was against our move to the Kings Dock and complained at that time that the club's ballot of fans was "rigged". He was never out of the Echo, telling us all how disasterous it would be. You couldn't make it up you really couldn't - Warren and Joe or should it be Laurel and Hardy? LOL!!!!
Gerard, there was only one comedian involved with the Kings Dock; he said we had £30 million ring-fenced, he was 99% certain we would be playing at the Kings Dock in 2007... Guess what? We didn't have £30 million ring-fenced. Fuck knows where that went and here we still are. Still we were fighting relegation all the time then it gave us something to cling too, nice little cover-up act. Then, just when we're I think on the verge of the Uefa Cup (we finshed 7th in the end ? I think it was 2004), let the news out of the bag that we didn't have it after all. The problem is the joke's on us!!
Same shit, different day and who could be suprised by the latest ploy by Kenwright and Co to silence the critics for whom there are many. I have given up listening to the lies, phoney dramatics of kenwright and downright dirty tatics that he constantly employs to ensure that he keeps hold of his beloved trainset. Two CEO’s in four years, 24/7 search for investment, 15 billionairres in the past 12 months making enquiries, Kings Dock, Destination Kirkby, Wayne Rooney, Christopher Samuelson and Fortress Sports Fund, Philip Green, Robert Earl, we could go on and on. Only due to the lack of apathy within the fanbase has this cretin allowed to continue with his shambolic stewardship of our once great Club, Dissolusioned - you bet to believe it.
Change that big banner from THE PEOPLES CLUB to.....
THE CHAIRMAN MAO CLUB
THE CHAIRMAN MAO CLUB
It's crunch time now. I haven't missed a home game for 45 years, but I am willing not to go to the next FA Cup home game, and hope every other supporter who is against the Kirkby move does the same. Only then will we be able to see an honest vote. SHAME ON YOU, EVERTON. I never thought I would say that about this great club of mine and my fellow supporters, but you have lost the plot, BK.
Best forum now for an EGM...Outside Goodison...where Bill & co cannot get your money.
Maybe then they’ll listen.
Maybe then they’ll listen.
Colin
Have I misread the transcript, or is it inaccurate ?
Bradley, clearly challenged the board to reveal who the discussions had taken place with. BkK started his reply with "well all I can tell you" then passed then the question to Sir Philip Carter. PC clearly had no idea, answering "er Keith" before trailing off...
Have I misread the transcript, or is it inaccurate ?
Bradley, clearly challenged the board to reveal who the discussions had taken place with. BkK started his reply with "well all I can tell you" then passed then the question to Sir Philip Carter. PC clearly had no idea, answering "er Keith" before trailing off...
I understand I could be taking the transcript out of context ? I wasn?t present ? but several people who were at the meeting have told me Bradley wheeled away in a dramatic "I rest my case" gesture, I?d like to hear other people's take on this.
Harry Enfield is almost certainly more financially astute than I am, but no he didn't write my script. If Kenwright diluted his shares, allowing money to come into the club he would still make several millions, he?s not prepared to do this, he will have accumulated enormous wealth by the time he sells ? on the back of EFC
Jim, How on earth can you describe Ian as an idiot for asking how it was possible to get back to the Wirral? The question was valid for every Wirral Evertonian without a car, every kid too young to drive, or even people who fancied a couple of pints before /after the game
As for buying shares? Na, mate, I?ll only buy shares in a company were my opinion counts for something.
Message removed for contravening the Conditions of Use
Jim Rafter posted: "some of the nonsense we had to listen to the other night (mostly from non-shareholders who had scrounged proxy votes) was ludicrous"
and
"the bleating of half pissed up morons"
I don?t wish to descend to name-calling on here, but are you Ian Ross in disguise? You later say that you were at the meeting (as was I) so I can only conclude that you yourself were "half pissed" if you thought that the nonsense was coming from the people who were ASKING the questions rather than those who were ANSWERING them!
Whoever said that the transcript doesn?t show the whole story, they are absolutely 100% correct. It doesn?t show how frustrated people got when their questions weren?t answered. It doesn?t show how much the board squirmed when time after time they were asked challenging questions that they couldn?t answer. It doesn?t show how uncomfortable David Moyes looked at having been forced to sit through all this debacle when he absolutely didn?t want to be there.
For the record, Warren Bradley left the podium because his question wasn?t answered by the Board. Philip Carter made a claim that a meeting had taken place and then failed to back up that claim when directly challenged. The transcript shows that, and that is absolutely what happened ? that is a fact.
If someone could also direct me to the claim that people would be "calling an EGM every week" then I would be very interested to see it. To my mind, this change to the Articles of Association was made purely due to the embarrassment the Board feel after their abject failure to answer the well-phrased and extremely pertinent questions put to them by people at last week's EGM. I think everyone agrees that holding EGMs like this repeatedly would be beneficial to nobody but they need to be accountable and I think this alleged threat of repeated EGMs has been manufactured to try to justify this move and hide the fact that they were completely out of their depth last week.
It?s a shameful and cowardly move ? but nothing less than I have come to expect from the people in charge whose short-term, hand-to-mouth desperate way of running the club has left us in this situation where I believe we are clearly locked into something that will be hugely detrimental and possibly terminal for our club.
The People?s Club? Not any more... not by a long chalk.
and
"the bleating of half pissed up morons"
I don?t wish to descend to name-calling on here, but are you Ian Ross in disguise? You later say that you were at the meeting (as was I) so I can only conclude that you yourself were "half pissed" if you thought that the nonsense was coming from the people who were ASKING the questions rather than those who were ANSWERING them!
Whoever said that the transcript doesn?t show the whole story, they are absolutely 100% correct. It doesn?t show how frustrated people got when their questions weren?t answered. It doesn?t show how much the board squirmed when time after time they were asked challenging questions that they couldn?t answer. It doesn?t show how uncomfortable David Moyes looked at having been forced to sit through all this debacle when he absolutely didn?t want to be there.
For the record, Warren Bradley left the podium because his question wasn?t answered by the Board. Philip Carter made a claim that a meeting had taken place and then failed to back up that claim when directly challenged. The transcript shows that, and that is absolutely what happened ? that is a fact.
If someone could also direct me to the claim that people would be "calling an EGM every week" then I would be very interested to see it. To my mind, this change to the Articles of Association was made purely due to the embarrassment the Board feel after their abject failure to answer the well-phrased and extremely pertinent questions put to them by people at last week's EGM. I think everyone agrees that holding EGMs like this repeatedly would be beneficial to nobody but they need to be accountable and I think this alleged threat of repeated EGMs has been manufactured to try to justify this move and hide the fact that they were completely out of their depth last week.
It?s a shameful and cowardly move ? but nothing less than I have come to expect from the people in charge whose short-term, hand-to-mouth desperate way of running the club has left us in this situation where I believe we are clearly locked into something that will be hugely detrimental and possibly terminal for our club.
The People?s Club? Not any more... not by a long chalk.
Can anyone enlighten me. I read the transcript from the EGM on this site. In effect it was a cross examination of the Board by minor shareholders. Was this transcript selective or did this site report everything? I only ask because I felt that the Board failed this cross examination and felt that, if lying to one's own fans and shareholders was a crime, then our Board looked very guilty. I can't understand how Howard Kendall and David prentice could see it any other way, but they do.
The Club bills itself as "The People?s Club". This is a statement of intent to be democratic in its dealings and attentive to its customers. A principle of democracy is one-man, one-vote and universal sufferage i.e. you don?t get power simply by virtue of relative wealth. Other clubs are owned by oligarchs and corporations. They give no pretence of democracy.
Our Chairman prided himself on the Kirkby vote. The People?s Club with a people?s mandate. As soon as this met a challenge from the people, there is retrenchment to a position of disenfranchisement. The Owners have every right to do this. They just need to take down the People?s Club Banners and Bunting to stop looking like hypocrites.
Despite flashy presentations and a "expert advisors" the board were humiliated at the EGM, they wouldn’t want too many repeat performances. A show of hands would have instantly shown the pitiful level of general support for even "considering" Kirkby any further. That would have been extremely damaging to the club’s myopic stance. The continued desperation to push DK through at all cost based solely on loyalty to Leahy not EFC, and to gag any protest is epitomised by this latest action. Given the new requirements is it possible to ever have an EGM called by small shareholders? It would probably have to be unanimous if at all, and that quite frankly is outragous.
Dave Johnson, to clarify, the transcript was not the whole meeting. The canned presentation by the Robert Elstone described the case against redeveloping Goodison Park. This presentation was not captured in the published transcript of the Question & Answer session that followed.
Michael, Dave Johnson, just to clear up any confusion the transcript is everything than happened at the meeting except Bill’s welcoming remarks, including the obligatory request to allow the press to stay, Mark’s brief statement which asked the shareholders to respect the board and the meeting, and the response to this statement which was Robert Elstones presentation; this is available on the club site. After the end of the transcript all that happened was Mark reading the resolution. All remarks by the board and their experts are fully included in the transcript, there was no editing save for the odd intelligible word. I think the person who transcibed it is owed a debt of gratitude, however Dave Prentice won?t be thanking them any day soon, his reporting the following evening that all questions were answered logically and that all concerns were explained will no doubt, as a result of this transcript, go down as a homage to Comical Ali.
I see the Echo is saying that the new rule requires 10% of shareholders to call an EGM, when it is actually 10% of the club?s shareholding ? a very different thing. I despair of journalists sometimes. I think it?s probably stupidity rather than conspiracy.......
Dear Steve Lyth,
Steve Lyth someone who I have never met, never spoken to or ever heard of.
The bet you refer to was a £1000.00 pound bet with Frank Hargreaves. The bet was very simple. He claimed EFC Ltd would fail with the Kirkby project due to their inability to finance their part. I took issue with this and accepted a bet from Frank with the caveat that any political decisions affecting the project invalidated the bet.
The Kirkby project is still ongoing in case you missed the obvious, obviously reading and thought processing are not your strong points. Frank can only win the bet if EFC Co Ltd fail to raise their finance, do YOU understand that bit? Not that hard is it?
Frank Hargreaves and his clique decided to attempt to claim I had defaulted on the bet to attempt to weaken the effect of my supplying information gleamed from EFC Co Ltd. In other words, Frank tried his hand at some spin and propaganda..... it worked, a large number of halfwits believed him...
I have stated publicly that if Frank wants to match the £1000.00 I will meet him at Zoe?s Place and we can hand over £2000.00 to Zoe?s place together, calling the bet quits, Zoe?s place being the winner.
Otherwise the bet stands as it is, I lose if EFC Co Ltd fail to raise the finance; I win if they do and it?s void if a political decision halts it.
I am prepared to give him a letter from my solicitors proving that they are holding the £1000, if he does the same????
Is that clear, Steve?
Steve Lyth someone who I have never met, never spoken to or ever heard of.
The bet you refer to was a £1000.00 pound bet with Frank Hargreaves. The bet was very simple. He claimed EFC Ltd would fail with the Kirkby project due to their inability to finance their part. I took issue with this and accepted a bet from Frank with the caveat that any political decisions affecting the project invalidated the bet.
The Kirkby project is still ongoing in case you missed the obvious, obviously reading and thought processing are not your strong points. Frank can only win the bet if EFC Co Ltd fail to raise their finance, do YOU understand that bit? Not that hard is it?
Frank Hargreaves and his clique decided to attempt to claim I had defaulted on the bet to attempt to weaken the effect of my supplying information gleamed from EFC Co Ltd. In other words, Frank tried his hand at some spin and propaganda..... it worked, a large number of halfwits believed him...
I have stated publicly that if Frank wants to match the £1000.00 I will meet him at Zoe?s Place and we can hand over £2000.00 to Zoe?s place together, calling the bet quits, Zoe?s place being the winner.
Otherwise the bet stands as it is, I lose if EFC Co Ltd fail to raise the finance; I win if they do and it?s void if a political decision halts it.
I am prepared to give him a letter from my solicitors proving that they are holding the £1000, if he does the same????
Is that clear, Steve?
Dear Rich Jones,
No idea where you get you figures from.
Toffeeweb claim a nominal share value of £30 million. http://www.toffeeweb.com/club/business/shares.asp#owners
My basic maths suggest that the club?s shares are nominally worth £42 million by share value. (circa £1200 per share)
No idea where you get your property values from either. Since 1999 when shares were bought property in Liverpool has gone up, up and up. Ask Robbie Fowler!! He?s now richer than all our directors thanks to property gains. Multiples of value of 3.5 to over 5 across area in Liverpool.
The share value is the same so how have they gained?
So how am I on dodgy ground?
No idea where you get you figures from.
Toffeeweb claim a nominal share value of £30 million. http://www.toffeeweb.com/club/business/shares.asp#owners
My basic maths suggest that the club?s shares are nominally worth £42 million by share value. (circa £1200 per share)
No idea where you get your property values from either. Since 1999 when shares were bought property in Liverpool has gone up, up and up. Ask Robbie Fowler!! He?s now richer than all our directors thanks to property gains. Multiples of value of 3.5 to over 5 across area in Liverpool.
The share value is the same so how have they gained?
So how am I on dodgy ground?
Dear Paul McMonnies,
Mark Grayson told me that he would keep on calling an EGM until he achieved what he wanted.
It was no state secret, I am sure you are also aware of the call for a second EGM before the first one was even done and dusted?
How much more evidence of the ?threat? would you like?
Perhaps if the first EGM had been properly called with correctly constructed questions and pertinent resolutions backed up with carefully constructed questions on the night presented with evidence delivered only by shareholders it would have been a different exercise. If you consider the second EGM call had already alerted man and dog to the real intent of the people behind the calls for an EGM, an attempt to create a situation to make the board resign.
It would have been complete folly for any corporate business of the stature of Everton to have allowed this game to continue.
I personally spoke to Mark and tried to persuade him to take a more cautious route, I even advised him to speak on the night about the transport issues. I tried to suggest to anyone who would listen that this was a time to ?keep the powder dry? not go in with all guns blazing.... the result was extremely predictable. I am utterly amazed that KEIOC?s lawyer had not forecast events according to the Companies Act, I had.
Robert Elstone is a very different CEO to KW. If ever there was an approachable CEO he is the man. Doesn?t mean he will wilt at the first hurdle though.
At the moment he is on course with the Kirkby project because it ticks all the financial, physical, corporate and sporting boxes PLUS it?s entirely deliverable. ( excepting political decisions)
Mark Grayson told me that he would keep on calling an EGM until he achieved what he wanted.
It was no state secret, I am sure you are also aware of the call for a second EGM before the first one was even done and dusted?
How much more evidence of the ?threat? would you like?
Perhaps if the first EGM had been properly called with correctly constructed questions and pertinent resolutions backed up with carefully constructed questions on the night presented with evidence delivered only by shareholders it would have been a different exercise. If you consider the second EGM call had already alerted man and dog to the real intent of the people behind the calls for an EGM, an attempt to create a situation to make the board resign.
It would have been complete folly for any corporate business of the stature of Everton to have allowed this game to continue.
I personally spoke to Mark and tried to persuade him to take a more cautious route, I even advised him to speak on the night about the transport issues. I tried to suggest to anyone who would listen that this was a time to ?keep the powder dry? not go in with all guns blazing.... the result was extremely predictable. I am utterly amazed that KEIOC?s lawyer had not forecast events according to the Companies Act, I had.
Robert Elstone is a very different CEO to KW. If ever there was an approachable CEO he is the man. Doesn?t mean he will wilt at the first hurdle though.
At the moment he is on course with the Kirkby project because it ticks all the financial, physical, corporate and sporting boxes PLUS it?s entirely deliverable. ( excepting political decisions)
Colin, isn't it funny that neither Frank or Zoe's Place agree with your version of events, so NO, it's not clear.
The question is though, is it deliverable?
The question is though, is it deliverable?
Colin,
Several months ago you attempted to ridicule me when I said the cost of the stadium to EFC would be in the order of £80m (at the initial planned enabling cross funding, now potentially much more) by saying we simply didn’t have that kind of money, reiterating the party-line that we wouldn’t be at the races if it wasn’t the promised stadium for "practically nothing". A few days later the £78m figure surfaced, and you haven’t been heard of since on this issue on this site. Or was that all naughty KW’s fault? Are you still one of his disciples btw? You seemed to hang off his every word before his untimely demise.
Several months ago you attempted to ridicule me when I said the cost of the stadium to EFC would be in the order of £80m (at the initial planned enabling cross funding, now potentially much more) by saying we simply didn’t have that kind of money, reiterating the party-line that we wouldn’t be at the races if it wasn’t the promised stadium for "practically nothing". A few days later the £78m figure surfaced, and you haven’t been heard of since on this issue on this site. Or was that all naughty KW’s fault? Are you still one of his disciples btw? You seemed to hang off his every word before his untimely demise.
Colin
The objective was to have a show of hands vote on the Kirkby issue. The second EGM petition was proposed as it was the only option available to shareholders like myself to use as leverage to force a show of hands vote on the night of the EGM.
Why would they not allow a show of hands Colin?
Clearly, the answer is that they do not want anything to get in the way of the DK proposals and the benefits it offers them.
LET?S BE CLEAR COLIN, THE BOARD KNEW THEY WOULD LOSE A SHOW OF HANDS VOTE ON KIRKBY AND HAVING WITNESSED THE COUNT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE WERE MORE SHAREHOLDERS IN FAVOUR OF OUR MOTION THAN AGAINST. A SHOW OF HANDS WOULD HAVE SEEN EVERTON FC WITHDRAW FROM THE DESTINATION KIRKBY SCHEME.
Colin, your powers of persuasion included you telling me that David Moyes has had £25m burning a whole in his pocket since May, apologies if I am a little sceptical about the advice you offer and the things you say!!
One last point, the actions taken by the board quite clearly demonstrates that they don?t care about the legitimate concerns of Evertonians and other shareholders of the club. Self interest is very evident by their actions.
It?s very sad Colin
The objective was to have a show of hands vote on the Kirkby issue. The second EGM petition was proposed as it was the only option available to shareholders like myself to use as leverage to force a show of hands vote on the night of the EGM.
Why would they not allow a show of hands Colin?
Clearly, the answer is that they do not want anything to get in the way of the DK proposals and the benefits it offers them.
LET?S BE CLEAR COLIN, THE BOARD KNEW THEY WOULD LOSE A SHOW OF HANDS VOTE ON KIRKBY AND HAVING WITNESSED THE COUNT I CAN TELL YOU THAT THERE WERE MORE SHAREHOLDERS IN FAVOUR OF OUR MOTION THAN AGAINST. A SHOW OF HANDS WOULD HAVE SEEN EVERTON FC WITHDRAW FROM THE DESTINATION KIRKBY SCHEME.
Colin, your powers of persuasion included you telling me that David Moyes has had £25m burning a whole in his pocket since May, apologies if I am a little sceptical about the advice you offer and the things you say!!
One last point, the actions taken by the board quite clearly demonstrates that they don?t care about the legitimate concerns of Evertonians and other shareholders of the club. Self interest is very evident by their actions.
It?s very sad Colin
Dear Colin Laphan
Sorry mate you?ve lost the plot
"At the moment he is on course with the Kirkby project"
Financial: Has anyone stopped laughing yet ?
Physical: WTF?
Corporate AND sporting boxes: are these one and the same boxes or are the different types, either way they?re bound to go like fucken hot cakes in Kirkby ? not!
Plus it's entirely deliverable; except the board have thus far been unable to deliver and let's face it never will.
And you call other people halfwits?
Sorry mate you?ve lost the plot
"At the moment he is on course with the Kirkby project"
Financial: Has anyone stopped laughing yet ?
Physical: WTF?
Corporate AND sporting boxes: are these one and the same boxes or are the different types, either way they?re bound to go like fucken hot cakes in Kirkby ? not!
Plus it's entirely deliverable; except the board have thus far been unable to deliver and let's face it never will.
And you call other people halfwits?
Dear Tom Hughes,
I apologise if you thought it was ridicule, I just don?t people grasp the reality of having to ?find? £80 million on the back of Goodison.
The £78m figure is the current top-end figure that Everton believe is ?affordable? or deliverable.
The £78m is not the figure for long term debt.
My point was we cannot afford £80 million.
The £78 million is cross-subsidised by the naming rights, property disposals etc.
The maximum long term debt based finance would be up to £30 million. With the current delays it is now more likely we will reach this figure.
My point is we don?t have £80 million to redevelop Goodison.
Securing/borrowing against the new stadium allows us to raise money.
Redeveloping Goodison is a financial nightmare.
However, a new city centre stadium COULD benefit from an equivalent £78million being put towards it..... and that door has not closed.
I apologise if you thought it was ridicule, I just don?t people grasp the reality of having to ?find? £80 million on the back of Goodison.
The £78m figure is the current top-end figure that Everton believe is ?affordable? or deliverable.
The £78m is not the figure for long term debt.
My point was we cannot afford £80 million.
The £78 million is cross-subsidised by the naming rights, property disposals etc.
The maximum long term debt based finance would be up to £30 million. With the current delays it is now more likely we will reach this figure.
My point is we don?t have £80 million to redevelop Goodison.
Securing/borrowing against the new stadium allows us to raise money.
Redeveloping Goodison is a financial nightmare.
However, a new city centre stadium COULD benefit from an equivalent £78million being put towards it..... and that door has not closed.
Dear Mark,
You admit to attempting to force the board to bend to your will. The board chose to poll as a fair representation of the democratic rights of the shareholders. If you wanted better representation, £10million would have bought you circa 25% etc. You pays your money you get the right to vote.....
A show of hands in a charged atmosphere packed with proxies and anti-DK people.... of course that would have pleased you.
On what planet should a shareholder whose paid £1200 for a share have the same vote as someone who has paid £10,000,000.00.... would that be a planet called anarchy by any chance?
As regards, David. The club began negotiating for Moutino and Mbia as soon as the transfer window opened. So you make you own paranoid mind up? David also made choices during the transfer window about other deals.
This years transfer window showed a spend of nearly £200 million less than last year and that was reflected in the struggle to get clubs to part with players. David and David alone chose who he wanted to go after, he is the manager.
I hope the board do have a self-interest, can I suggest they have £30million pounds of self-interest plus another £30million in guarantees.... It is their self-interest that guarantees they will do everything in their power to improve the club.
They?ve not done to badly since they came, or maybe you liked the relegation battle each year?
You admit to attempting to force the board to bend to your will. The board chose to poll as a fair representation of the democratic rights of the shareholders. If you wanted better representation, £10million would have bought you circa 25% etc. You pays your money you get the right to vote.....
A show of hands in a charged atmosphere packed with proxies and anti-DK people.... of course that would have pleased you.
On what planet should a shareholder whose paid £1200 for a share have the same vote as someone who has paid £10,000,000.00.... would that be a planet called anarchy by any chance?
As regards, David. The club began negotiating for Moutino and Mbia as soon as the transfer window opened. So you make you own paranoid mind up? David also made choices during the transfer window about other deals.
This years transfer window showed a spend of nearly £200 million less than last year and that was reflected in the struggle to get clubs to part with players. David and David alone chose who he wanted to go after, he is the manager.
I hope the board do have a self-interest, can I suggest they have £30million pounds of self-interest plus another £30million in guarantees.... It is their self-interest that guarantees they will do everything in their power to improve the club.
They?ve not done to badly since they came, or maybe you liked the relegation battle each year?
Dear Dave,
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
It is absolutely deliverable barring political meddling.
Whether it is delivered is another question, maybe all this will create a better chance for a city centre stadium.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
It is absolutely deliverable barring political meddling.
Whether it is delivered is another question, maybe all this will create a better chance for a city centre stadium.
Colin,
Just as back then, I think you’re being wayward with your cost assumptions and figures, notably without really stating any. Naming rights and sales of existing assets? What chunk of £78m (and rising) will that see off? My point however is we don’t necessarilly need £80m to redevelop GP, certainly not in the short term. A relatively modest outlay could add capacity and corporate facilities to more than match DK both in quantity and quality terms.... at the same time offering continuity in terms of history/tradition and avoiding the potentially catastrophic transport failings of Kirkby, that have already prompted at least 2 official revisions of the transport strategy (3 if you include the original unreleased version). I think BESTWAY’S experience disproves your final point pretty emphatically. BK’s priority is his loyalty to Tesco Terry and his deal of the century that shuns comparison and avoids criticism at every turn..... hence the current action which is without precedent in the club’s history.
Just as back then, I think you’re being wayward with your cost assumptions and figures, notably without really stating any. Naming rights and sales of existing assets? What chunk of £78m (and rising) will that see off? My point however is we don’t necessarilly need £80m to redevelop GP, certainly not in the short term. A relatively modest outlay could add capacity and corporate facilities to more than match DK both in quantity and quality terms.... at the same time offering continuity in terms of history/tradition and avoiding the potentially catastrophic transport failings of Kirkby, that have already prompted at least 2 official revisions of the transport strategy (3 if you include the original unreleased version). I think BESTWAY’S experience disproves your final point pretty emphatically. BK’s priority is his loyalty to Tesco Terry and his deal of the century that shuns comparison and avoids criticism at every turn..... hence the current action which is without precedent in the club’s history.
Colin,
If a show of hands is sufficient to elect board members it is certainly enough to gauge the feeling of a sizeable sample of Evertonians. It would appear the vast majority of whom have long since rejected DK and the fundamentally flawed process to date..... a show of hands would’ve demonstrated this clearly and seriously undermine their stance and the whole Kirkby project. Hence the hastilly drafted jubilant OS release to temper the reality of what went on in the EGM. This hurt them a lot..... round 2 would only be worse, because they have no answers except to try to justify fitting our problems into Tesco’s solution.
If a show of hands is sufficient to elect board members it is certainly enough to gauge the feeling of a sizeable sample of Evertonians. It would appear the vast majority of whom have long since rejected DK and the fundamentally flawed process to date..... a show of hands would’ve demonstrated this clearly and seriously undermine their stance and the whole Kirkby project. Hence the hastilly drafted jubilant OS release to temper the reality of what went on in the EGM. This hurt them a lot..... round 2 would only be worse, because they have no answers except to try to justify fitting our problems into Tesco’s solution.
Colin Fitz,
what did he vote in the Ballot?
and what was the comotion in the Brick after the EGM?
what did he vote in the Ballot?
and what was the comotion in the Brick after the EGM?
Dear Tom,
I recently had the pleasure of listening to Trevor talk about the different options.
Apart from needing around £30 million per stand we have to offset the lost revenue, the disruption and if we had to do it properly the acquisition of land around GP.
All this would mean a long project fraught with obstacles all funded from our own pockets with no naming rights, plus local infrastructure costs to support increased capacity.
On the club?s present finances this is a non-starter whether you phase it or not.
Even Trevor admitted that an enabler for one stand would mean giving away revenue streams to support it.
What was very evident listening to Trevor was the genuine chance to develop a brand new city centre site elsewhere.
Unfortunately the anti-Kirkby campaign has proved to be a negative effort. It would be better to concentrate on a positive campaign behind a new city centre stadium and let Kirkby fall by the wayside of its own accord.
Many of the KEIOC group do seem to be behind the idea of a city centre stadium?
I recently had the pleasure of listening to Trevor talk about the different options.
Apart from needing around £30 million per stand we have to offset the lost revenue, the disruption and if we had to do it properly the acquisition of land around GP.
All this would mean a long project fraught with obstacles all funded from our own pockets with no naming rights, plus local infrastructure costs to support increased capacity.
On the club?s present finances this is a non-starter whether you phase it or not.
Even Trevor admitted that an enabler for one stand would mean giving away revenue streams to support it.
What was very evident listening to Trevor was the genuine chance to develop a brand new city centre site elsewhere.
Unfortunately the anti-Kirkby campaign has proved to be a negative effort. It would be better to concentrate on a positive campaign behind a new city centre stadium and let Kirkby fall by the wayside of its own accord.
Many of the KEIOC group do seem to be behind the idea of a city centre stadium?
Dear Tom,
I don?t know why you think a big a majority of fans or shareholders don?t want Kirkby.
Try sampling a number of ordinary fans not connected to KEIOC and you will see a different story. Same as on the boards/forums.
Same people, same voices, not the majority at all.
What they all want is a sucessful team and a new stadium. Kirkby will do, but city centre is better.
I don?t know why you think a big a majority of fans or shareholders don?t want Kirkby.
Try sampling a number of ordinary fans not connected to KEIOC and you will see a different story. Same as on the boards/forums.
Same people, same voices, not the majority at all.
What they all want is a sucessful team and a new stadium. Kirkby will do, but city centre is better.
Dear Colin Laphan.
Could you please refrain from this absurd and quite disconcerting pretence of yours that you are on first name terms with the manager of Everton Football Club.
"As regards, David...." "David also made choices...." "David and David alone chose who he wanted...." It’s all very creepy.
Isn’t it time you ’came out’ Colin and confirm to all Evertonians that anyone who is not a outrageous sycophant like yourself is not ’with Bill’ but ’against Bill?’*
(*’Bill’ is Bill Kenwright, I don’t know him personally nor do I have the need or the wish to.)
Could you please refrain from this absurd and quite disconcerting pretence of yours that you are on first name terms with the manager of Everton Football Club.
"As regards, David...." "David also made choices...." "David and David alone chose who he wanted...." It’s all very creepy.
Isn’t it time you ’came out’ Colin and confirm to all Evertonians that anyone who is not a outrageous sycophant like yourself is not ’with Bill’ but ’against Bill?’*
(*’Bill’ is Bill Kenwright, I don’t know him personally nor do I have the need or the wish to.)
Dear Neil,
When I have met Mr. D. Moyes esq. I have been able to be personable and call him by his first name. We have friends in common.
I apologise if by using his Christian name it implies I am his best friend. I am not.
However if I speak to people at the club I refer to him as David, as they do. It’s a habit, sorry.
Any knowledge I have is first hand, not gossip, rumour or innuendo. Otherwise I wouldn’t be on here discussing the semantics.
When I have met Mr. D. Moyes esq. I have been able to be personable and call him by his first name. We have friends in common.
I apologise if by using his Christian name it implies I am his best friend. I am not.
However if I speak to people at the club I refer to him as David, as they do. It’s a habit, sorry.
Any knowledge I have is first hand, not gossip, rumour or innuendo. Otherwise I wouldn’t be on here discussing the semantics.
Colin,
Show me a single post-vote poll on this or any other site that supports your argument that the majority are in favour of Kirkby. There certainly hasn’t been one on Toffeeweb that is even close to your assertion. They are all there in the archives. Plus at the EGM with an attendance of c.700 over 600 votes registered against Kirkby since most small shareholders have only single shares this would be indicative of major rejection. Of course the club could readily refute this by allowing the show of hands that suffices for every other meeting proposal then still apply their majority ownership figures afterwards as oft-times before. You know, and the club knows this would have been emphatic hence their refusal and the current farce. Also, ask those around you at Stoke to gauge feeling. I’ve done it all over the place and have never been in the minority.
Show me a single post-vote poll on this or any other site that supports your argument that the majority are in favour of Kirkby. There certainly hasn’t been one on Toffeeweb that is even close to your assertion. They are all there in the archives. Plus at the EGM with an attendance of c.700 over 600 votes registered against Kirkby since most small shareholders have only single shares this would be indicative of major rejection. Of course the club could readily refute this by allowing the show of hands that suffices for every other meeting proposal then still apply their majority ownership figures afterwards as oft-times before. You know, and the club knows this would have been emphatic hence their refusal and the current farce. Also, ask those around you at Stoke to gauge feeling. I’ve done it all over the place and have never been in the minority.
Colin,
By the way, I would press Trevor a bit further regarding GP before quoting him ("giving away revenue streams" where have I heard that before? Have we already got a hotel? If it generates a high proportion of a new stand’s costs then it will have done its job). I think you would find it is his favoured option both practically and emotionally by some margin.
I agree though that there are exciting options in the city-centre, and the fact that the club has built a barrier to exclude these options has been dereliction of duty of the first order. Their insistance on someone else doing all the work on this is further proof of this. They should have team of people working with LCC and stadium architects generating solutions and financial packages to realise them. Kings Dock and its broad enabling scope would have funded upto 90% of that stadium’s cost. DK doesn’t even come close! Deal of the century?
By the way, I would press Trevor a bit further regarding GP before quoting him ("giving away revenue streams" where have I heard that before? Have we already got a hotel? If it generates a high proportion of a new stand’s costs then it will have done its job). I think you would find it is his favoured option both practically and emotionally by some margin.
I agree though that there are exciting options in the city-centre, and the fact that the club has built a barrier to exclude these options has been dereliction of duty of the first order. Their insistance on someone else doing all the work on this is further proof of this. They should have team of people working with LCC and stadium architects generating solutions and financial packages to realise them. Kings Dock and its broad enabling scope would have funded upto 90% of that stadium’s cost. DK doesn’t even come close! Deal of the century?
Colin Laphan - From ’David’ all the way to ’Mr. D. Moyes esq’ in just two posts. That’s some going. A simple ’David Moyes’ will suffice next time.
So, you know first hand, not gossip, rumour or innuendo but from the horses mouth so to speak, that David Moyes had £25m at his disposal in May. That’s impressive. I presume that the first payment on AJ meant that in early June, David Moyes was flush with +/- £30m. With just 3 points out of 9 and a very testing 5 or 6 weeks coming up, the anti-Moyes brigade have been handed some heavy artillery on a plate then. Interesting.
As you seem to have the ear of some very important people within the Everton hierarchy, can you answer me this question;
Was Keith Wyness aware of the changes to the Companies Act 2006?
So, you know first hand, not gossip, rumour or innuendo but from the horses mouth so to speak, that David Moyes had £25m at his disposal in May. That’s impressive. I presume that the first payment on AJ meant that in early June, David Moyes was flush with +/- £30m. With just 3 points out of 9 and a very testing 5 or 6 weeks coming up, the anti-Moyes brigade have been handed some heavy artillery on a plate then. Interesting.
As you seem to have the ear of some very important people within the Everton hierarchy, can you answer me this question;
Was Keith Wyness aware of the changes to the Companies Act 2006?
Yes Colin, we attempted to force our will, the collective will of the 400 or so shareholders that backed our petition to debate and decide on the Kirkby issue now that further facts have come to light. We originally requested that the board go back to the fans to hold a fresh ballot now that the description of a world class effectively free stadium with the best transport links in the UK was proven to be false. Unfortunately, as you know, the board dismissed this request out of hand. What else could we do after the board so clearly nailed their colours to the DK mast? For the record it was Kenwright, Woods, Earl, Carter and Abercrombie with their combined 26,000 shares that decided against our motion and this episode suggests to me that they would take us to Kirkby if they could get away with it.
We offered the board a way out of the Kirkby situation; an opportunity for the board to save face by responding to the wishes of those shareholders present at the EGM, many of whom, actually turned out to be proxy?s for Mr Kenwright and even Keith Wyness! The board must realise that there is no guarantee that DK will proceed so a Plan B is now urgently required.
I must admit that I am concerned that a man who has publicly admitted that he cannot take the club any further and who states he does not want to be here in twelve months time is currently burdened with the responsibility of overseeing the destiny of OUR club. We, the supporters, stakeholders, are the constant, not Kenwright, not Woods, not Earl but us, EVERTONIANS. The collective views of Evertonians were and are being ignored by the board. The board should have gone back to the fans with the full facts, why didn?t they?
This decision is worthy of debate and is fundamental to the future prosperity and status of the club. You talk about a city centre site Colin, no doubt Potts and Kenwright will be wise to revisit the loop site now that Project Jennifer has bitten the dust. I hope that Potts would be less dismissive and that Kenwright himself would take the lead should any such opportunity merit further investigation.
We offered the board a way out of the Kirkby situation; an opportunity for the board to save face by responding to the wishes of those shareholders present at the EGM, many of whom, actually turned out to be proxy?s for Mr Kenwright and even Keith Wyness! The board must realise that there is no guarantee that DK will proceed so a Plan B is now urgently required.
I must admit that I am concerned that a man who has publicly admitted that he cannot take the club any further and who states he does not want to be here in twelve months time is currently burdened with the responsibility of overseeing the destiny of OUR club. We, the supporters, stakeholders, are the constant, not Kenwright, not Woods, not Earl but us, EVERTONIANS. The collective views of Evertonians were and are being ignored by the board. The board should have gone back to the fans with the full facts, why didn?t they?
This decision is worthy of debate and is fundamental to the future prosperity and status of the club. You talk about a city centre site Colin, no doubt Potts and Kenwright will be wise to revisit the loop site now that Project Jennifer has bitten the dust. I hope that Potts would be less dismissive and that Kenwright himself would take the lead should any such opportunity merit further investigation.
As I said at the AGM, given that Tesco led Kenwright, I just don?t see how he can proactively pursue and resolve the stadium issue in the city however it may buy Mr Kenwright some time if he did and I am sure that nobody will begrudge him a handsome profit if he secures the best long term interests of the club. I just hope any such exercise would be a genuine attempt to resolve the issue, lip service will only lead to further confrontation.
As has been suggested elsewhere, a working group should be assembled to ensure that the issue is resolved to the satisfaction of all stakeholders and certainly an invitation should be extended to individuals such as Trevor Skempton to participate in any such process. We all want what is best for EFC and it would be wise to remember that the majority of minds at the EGM favoured our motion to withdraw from Kirkby and to engage with LCC.
I?m sure that the Call In and the EGM has raised a few doubts and perhaps forced a rethink at board level; hopefully the result of this will see an urgently required plan B materialise sooner rather than later? Who knows eh?
What is it with the pro-BK people? I've never had an axe to grind but he's told lie after lie. I don't know his motives but don't trust him anymore. How can Howard Kendall, Dave Prentice and some of you lot defend him? There's nothing to defend. It's as absurd as The Emperors New Clothes. He's lied and that's a fact. Now whether he's lied cos he's doing some little flanker on our behalf, I dont know and I very much doubt it. I just wish that some of you would stop treating the rest of us like traitors just for pointing out that he has been telling whoppers. Bye the way, I've found the transfer kitty:
http://www.chrishigh.com/reviews/theatre/scrooge_michael_barrymore.htm
http://www.chrishigh.com/reviews/theatre/scrooge_michael_barrymore.htm
Dear Mark,
Would you be on that working party?
Would you be on that working party?
Dear Neil,
With regard to the Companies Act 2006, any specific amendment?
With regard to the Companies Act 2006, any specific amendment?
Colin how can you support the move to Kirkby so fervently from the start and then drop into your latest responses, "A City centre venue would be better", and at the same time, belittle Mark Grayson for bringing a resoloution to the table that might actually allow coversations about such a City centre venue????
Colin - the specific amendment relevant to this thread.
So, are we not going to Kirkby?
Mark,
As I understand it, a show of hands is not available to proxies. It seems there were a large number of proxies present so I fail to see how a show of hands would have generated the result you suggest.
As I understand it, a show of hands is not available to proxies. It seems there were a large number of proxies present so I fail to see how a show of hands would have generated the result you suggest.
Peter,
There are always proxies at the club?s AGMs and EGMs. That is what they are there for to represent the shareholder who can?t attend. I could not be there since I was out of the country so I elected for someone to go in my place and represent my stance and vote on my behalf. Previously at ALL these occasions a show of hands ALWAYS sufficed. A room of c.700 predominently single-share holders generated over 600 votes...... that?s why they didn?t want the show of hands, and that?s why they?re trying everything to avoid doing so in the future..... which is unprecedented in the club?s history. This represents a big anti-Kirkby majority amongst small shareholders.
There are always proxies at the club?s AGMs and EGMs. That is what they are there for to represent the shareholder who can?t attend. I could not be there since I was out of the country so I elected for someone to go in my place and represent my stance and vote on my behalf. Previously at ALL these occasions a show of hands ALWAYS sufficed. A room of c.700 predominently single-share holders generated over 600 votes...... that?s why they didn?t want the show of hands, and that?s why they?re trying everything to avoid doing so in the future..... which is unprecedented in the club?s history. This represents a big anti-Kirkby majority amongst small shareholders.
We will not have this website used for petty battles among Evertonians who should know better than to behave like schoolchildren.
THREAD CLOSED
© ToffeeWeb
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
-sm.jpg)
