Toffeeweb - The Mail Bag - EFC Major Shareholders

EFC Major Shareholders

12 Comments: First | Last

Given the scrutiny the club is currently under, I was browsing through the Club's Annual Report statements and came across something that I found interesting regarding shareholders.

The accounts for 2009 and 2010 state that the major shareholders are :

? Kenwright 8,754
? Woods 6,662
? Earl 8,146

However, when you look on the official website, the shareholdings of both Woods and Earl are the same number, whereas Kenwright?s shareholding has INCREASED to 9,044.

Now I don?t profess to understanding how Everton shares work, and how their value changes, but unless they increase in value pretty quickly, why would he buy more shares in an organisation he is desperate to sell? Can anyone offer some rationalisation?
Gary Rowlands, Rhyl, Wales Posted 19/08/2011 at 14:02:07

back Return to the Mail Bag : Add your Comments

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

Gavin Ramejkis
1 Posted 19/08/2011 at 18:06:04

Report abuse

To earn more when he does give it up? Maybe he thinks the next supermarket screw will work?

Duncan McDine
2 Posted 19/08/2011 at 19:58:59

Report abuse

Email him to find out... he's good with numbers, and will certainly give you an honest, straight-forward answer.

Duncan McDine
3 Posted 19/08/2011 at 20:04:58

Report abuse

btw - have you seen the explanation for the Blue Union meeting on the Official Website?

"Someone close that gate before the horse.... ah fuck"

Mike Allison
4 Posted 19/08/2011 at 22:38:00

Report abuse

So that he's got to offer to a potential buyer? Hardly fucking rocket science, what a stupid question.

Gary Rowlands
5 Posted 19/08/2011 at 22:46:05

Report abuse

"So that he's got to offer to a potential buyer?" Hardly fuckin good English. What a stupid answer. He was the major shareholder anyway !

Rob Jones
6 Posted 19/08/2011 at 23:19:50

Report abuse

Gary (5) Major shareholder - yes. majority shareholder - no.

Rob Jones
7 Posted 19/08/2011 at 23:21:27

Report abuse

suspect 'more to offer' was intended.

Gary Rowlands
8 Posted 19/08/2011 at 23:24:28

Report abuse

Rob (6) Dead right. Major holder with 25.84% of shares. The reason I am asking (and would rather not be told its a stupid question Mike #4) is why would he want to increase his shareholding since the 2010 annual report by around 300 shares given he is already the major holder?
I understand the FTSE where people invest in shares on the basis that share value will increase, but I am just asking (given Everton not being a plc) why would he, and only he, obtain more shares. Surely buying more shares would mean a potential buyer would need to pay more to buy him out ? I apologise if I am being naive in my knowledge of these sort of things, but all I asked was for some rationalisation as I'm a tad confused !

Mike Allison
9 Posted 20/08/2011 at 09:07:32

Report abuse

Because if he's trying to sell the club he doesn't want to talk someone into it and negotiate with them only to have to say, "oh by the way, most of these shares aren't actually mine to sell, I'd better check with the guys who do own them." How does that look?

By the way, my answer is quite possibly not the correct reason, but its a fairly simple assumption to make. What are you implying by the question if you don't accept my possible answer? I think it is a stupid question, and what's more, you don't even mean it but are only asking it rhetorically for another bout of Kenwright bashing.

And to pick up on a missing word when its obvious what I meant? Absolutely pathetic.

Chad Schofield
10 Posted 20/08/2011 at 09:22:35

Report abuse

Mike, get a grip... Why are you bandying about words like stupid and pathetic?

Your first answer made no sense given there hasn't presumably been a share issue (unless he just can magically dilute the other shareholders' stake) and in your second you point out another problem anyway... he is negotiating as a "major" shareholder not the majority shareholder.

So is it really a pathetically stupid question? For someone so poor, why would Bill buy more shares?

The two things I can think of is that people wanted to sell but he/they did not want any other parties involved - the others not wishing to purchase forced/led Bill to buy. Alternatively it may be part of his salary/return on loan.

Stewart Oakes
11 Posted 20/08/2011 at 11:50:04

Report abuse

I'm not 100% sure of this but i think that it now means if a buyer comes in Kenwright and Earl have just over 50% of the club to sell, which would give the buyer a controlling intrest in the club.

Gary Rowlands
12 Posted 20/08/2011 at 12:31:20

Report abuse

Mike #9 He increased his shareholding by 290 shares which equates to an increase from 25.01% to 25.84% (assuming 35000 shares available) Hardly going to blow the socks off a potential investor is it.
And for your information, I'm not bashing Kenwright, I would actually prefer him to ending up like Blackburn. I was merely interested in the reason why someone who apparently hasn't got 2 pennies to rub together can buy more shares. If the reason is because he has 290 more to offer a potential buyer, well done for getting the right answer even though your grammar is shit !

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.