Hi Joe,

I understand that the Fans' Forum has changed this year, with a fan, Tony Bott, as Chairman. But I have been unable to find any information about future meetings and certainly nothing about the meeting tonight. [The Fans Forum 2011-2014 page at the OS goes nowhere... well except for a great photo of Big Dunc...]

Your observations and report on what transpires would be much appreciated.

I admit it's been a while since I bothered looking at the Fans Forum section of the OS but, to their credit, they are now publishing full Meeting Notes, going back to the beginning of last season, rather than the potted summaries they used to provide.

Well, saying that, I see that the last one up was August 2012, so nothing from September yet, as they head into tonight's October meeting.

One thing I spotted in the January notes was that they had acquired a new domain name, and would go live with an interactive forum at http://www.evertonfansforum.com...

"Oops! Google Chrome could not find evertonfansforum.com"... ah well...

Oh, here's another item of OS link-bait: "For information on when our next Fans' Forum events are taking place, visit evertonfc.com/calendar. "

Er.... not that I can see! (Nice idea, though)

The next one is next Month

Are execs from the club present and if so who?

Robert Elstone, Leighton Baines, Jags and Sharpie are there on behalf of the club

According to a post on the Followtonians site, Elstone apparently said that

• there would be funds to spend in January
• £9m of the £12m from the Rodwell sale was spent on Mirallas and Oviedo
• he spoke to potential investors in the last 24 hours
• he is hopeful that Moyes's good relationship with Kenwright would be enough to see him sign a new contract

Hmmm, £1.8m more than reported. 3m isn't much for a centre mid either.

Absolute joke of an evening. Too interested in slagging off the Blue Union - that's why we can't have an EGM apparently and telling lies about their plans for a new stadium, which they have but they're waiting for investors. So they have plans for a stadium that they don't know where it is going to be built except it’s within the city boundary? What an absolute joke of a CEO who now admits that KEIOC were right all along about the Park End development, just like they were right about Kirkby and the non-existent £52m and no doubt just as they are right about the deal with Kitbag stinking to high heaven.

For an accountant Elstone has a major problem with numbers. The general meetings were banned four years ago the Blue Union's only been in existence for 18 months but they're the reason there's no AGM so I'd put this to the the organisers - disband and let's have a general meeting about the performance of the board and the CEO since the last meeting in 2008, dead easy

Lions led by donkeys.

Oh and Michael, if you don't get an answer from Tony Bott perhaps you can ask Everton's appointed Supporters Liaison Officer. You didn't know we had one? Well we have. It's a condition of the Uefa licencing except the SLO hasn't been appointed in the spirit of the guidelines, just like the fans forum eh?

Lipservice from amateur Liverpudlians that have been sacked here there and everywhere.

Paul,

You sound like the Judean People's Front, or is it the People's Front of Judea, or the Judea Popular Peoples Front. How many groups do you all want?

Paul were there any critical questions or was everyone "on message" ready to clap if Bill's photo was held up?

Interesting night, nice and open and set out to do what was adverstised, which by no way was a formal AGM type event.

Welcome chance to meet a couple of our star players, Mr Elstone and Sharpie.

I was there and already have issues with some of the reported comments on here which did not take place, or at least to the room at large.

Re Blue Union knocking, well this only came into play after the first floor question challenging the non-existent AGMs and subsequent follow-on questions. (City Council got more knocks overall).

From my point of view it is quite clear there is no trust here; Blue Union followers don't trust the club and the club now don't trust the Blue Union, both parties need to extend olive branches to remedy this situation, I'm sure, to get dialogue that will move this club forward.

But for now the club are perfectly entitled to withhold AGM's so the onus for me is on the Union to prove themselves.

Many of us in the room I'm sure left well satisfied with the openness and opportunity extended to us and look forward to our wonderful start continuing... If Alan Irwin hasn't put the proverbial mockers on us.

Guess I'll just wait for the comments in reply that mock me as a Kenwright follower, but they'll only serve to prove the point.

I saw references to blaming the Blue Union for the binning of the AGMs on Twitter this evening and wondered myself if such revisionism of history would be allowed to go unchallenged.

The Board's decision to dodge criticism at A/EGMs pre-dated the Blue Union by at least two years!

Peter Cross #208 *coughs plant? cough* ...Nah, just yet another illustration of the wide spectrum of TW opinion aka blinkered Board fault deny-er.

#208 Peter, on what basis do you say "... the club are perfectly entitled to withhold AGMs ..."?

And what point is proven should people mock you for your report?

Thanks

- If (nb: I wasn't there so only say IF) the BU WAS given as the reason for the canceling of AGMs, will this total fucking nonsense (given the BU wasn't formed when AGMs were canceled) be enough for those who 'argue' - "Hey the board are doing their best let's be positive and just enjoy the football" - to accept that they (we!) are being lied to and treated like morons?

(doubt it)

Peter Cross (208) you say..

"I was there and already have issues with some of the reported comments on here which did not take place, or at least to the room at large"

Could you SPECIFY which comments reported on 'here' (presumably in this thread) did not take place?

No floor discussion was held into the Rodwell money or where spent, but yes there was reference to some money remaining in the budget for January, probably a loan signing. (I'd have hoped for a bit more than that personally now given we must have already attracted more tv appearance money than expected/budgeted.)

Back to AGMs and the timeline, the shareholder 'proxies' got the 'blame' for the initial disruptions – not BU.

Am I Kenwright lover? No; he did a good job rescuing us from Johnson but needs to move over to allow us to move forward – no-one on either side disputes that.

Would I like a new stadium? – Yes, from my cramped seat in the Upper Bullens.

Do I fear a stadium will impact on the team and style of play? – Undoubtedly; without new injection of major backing, Moyes is again building something very promising right now.

So for me, for now we have to keep looking for a suitable buyer (I don't believe any buyer is good news – we all know there have been many poor sales), but at some point the club is going to have to trust one of these prospects to deliver before we finally fall down the order once more. At that point, those that fail to 'believe' in the current board can inspire us all that the new board/owner is the best thing since sliced bread.

Someone posted a recap on GOT:

"Alright lads, just thought I'd let you know about the Everton Fans Conference that I was lucky enough to attend tonight at Goodison. It was a free two hour event in the Alex Young Suite, for season ticket holders who have had their ticket for the past 10 or more consecutive years. Robert Elstone, Leighton Baines, Phil Jagielka and Graeme Sharp were the main speakers. Alan Irwin from Radio City was the compere. There was about 100 or so fans. Free scouse and free bottles of Chang for everyone. Everyone attending was given an A3 size team photo poster that was personalised with their own name on, that could be signed by Baines & Jags, as well as smaller photos of Jags, Baines and also Sharpy.

Main points of interest:

- Baines & Jagielka were interviewed. Irwin asked them about their experiences midweek with England, and what their first hand accounts of the events were. Both seemed really nice, down to earth lads. Irwin was joking with them about loading up on caffeine and sleeping tablets, but Jags just said he slept like a log after coming back from the postponed game, after a midnight table tennis match with Gary Cahill. They spoke a bit about our progress this season, and how QPR could be a banana skin if we're not careful. Baines spoke about the signing of Hitzlsperger, and how he's a great lad, has looked in training, and could be useful in the next two games for keeping things secure in front of the defence. They then spent about 30 minutes going around all the tables, posing for a group photo at each table, as well as some individual photos, and signed autographs for every one. It was really nice meeting them. After this, they left.

- Robert Elstone spoke next. Amongst the interesting things of note:
*Investment - nothing has changed. Club continues to talk to people. Confidentially agreements are signed. Interested parties then disappear. Reasons for their departures from the negotiating table are either unknown, or can't be stated publicly due to the confidentiality agreement. Club is currently holding meeting with a new interested party. Watch this space! He didn't actually say 'Watch this space'.

*Stadium - the most interesting thing he said was about this subject. The biggest news is that the club is finally seeing the light, and is moving away from the idea of a retail-led stadium development. Hooray! Finding the money for a new stadium is as hard as ever. Staying at Goodison is still not an option, because the time and costs for buying properties, knocking down streets, renovating a stand at a time, for a meagre increase in seats, no prospect of stadium rights because everyone would still call it Goodison, lack of major increase in executive facilities etc, means it is a non-starter and not feasible.

Ah, but what about LFC, I hear you cry! Well, Elstone was interestingly rather sceptical about the LFC plans, saying that they only said they were redeveloping Anfield because they didn't just want to announce the bad news that they weren't building on Stanley Park after all. He's very sceptical about how LFC will fund it, saying £150m for an increase of 15,000 seats is £10,000 per extra seat, which is exorbitant and not worth it. He doubted the ease at which houses will be bought up. He basically said if redeveloping Anfield was so easy, why have they spent 12 years trying to move to a new stadium. He was careful with what he said, but he later agreed with a fans question about how LCC was basically favouring them over us, that LFC do little for the local community whereas we do loads and win awards for it, that LCC needs 'dynamic members who want to help us and who aren't there at the moment'. He said Joe Anderson is a good blue and tries, but even as the leader, he's only one man.

He touched on the Park End development. He confirmed that the plan stalled because Prudential who own a very small part of the Goodison footprint would not release equity on the land and were very unreasonable and wanted to draw up new loan agreements which the club disagreed with. He said it isn't dead in the water, but that they're working on something to do with it.

He said AGMs are still banned because Kenwright and the board are still upset over the last time AGMs were held and 'proxies' tried to disrupt things by asking for repeated EGMs. He said matters weren't help by Kenwright feeling he was betrayed by all the Blue Union stuff last season. A return of AGMs is not imminent.

He apologised for the Leyton Orient game ticketing fiasco, saying they screwed up and sold twice as many tickets to be picked up on the night as they should have done.

He said they will be launching a new thing for the Sunderland game where home match tickets bought on line can be printed out and brought to the game to use, similar to how you can do that for concert tickets with Ticketmaster.

There's a feeling within the other Prem clubs that when the new Sky/BT money arrives next summer, that they shouldn't give it to the players and instead they should keep it and use on the club. What a novel idea! He said there might be a change to UEFA Fair Play Financial rules to ensure this happens.

He mentioned how keeping Goodison updated is a costly on-going issue, saying they spent £300,000 on improving the toilets at the ground this past summer. Yes, THREE HUNDRED GRAND.

He said there's little chance of ticket prices being reduced in the future, as EFC are already competitively priced.

He said the debt isn't decreasing, is currently being serviced, but on the bright side, isn't increasing either. Nor would the bank let them increase it. Although he said the club do have a good relationship with the banks.

He said the upcoming figures for 2011/2012 wouldn't be very good. Gates dropped to an average of 33k last season and tv money was down due to being featured far less.

He said there was money in the transfer pot for January, for maybe a loan or a permanent signing (money that had been allocated for the Belgian lad move that fell through).

He spoke for about 35 mins, then another 10 mins at the end. He came across well, as always. The questions from the fans weren't softballs either and he dealt with it well.

Sharp then spoke a bit for the final part. He basically talked about the season so far, saying we should have played a full strength team vs Leeds, but he understands why Moyes didn't. He basically said what Sharp normally says on the radio, that we can challenge for 4th, etc.

All in all, it was good event. Easy to be cynical about stuff, but other clubs wouldn't be doing stuff like this for the fans, so fair do's to them.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head. If anyone has any questions about anything else said, I'll try to answer them."

It's all about the AGMs: if you keep the hoi polloi at arm's length, any pertinent questioning is spun as troublemaking.

"Proxy voters... Blue Union" — whichever way you look at it, they simply won't be held accountable... it's their toy with nothing to do with the paying public.

As for Goodison Park, what better way to dismiss ideas than put the boot in at Anfield and stoke the "council are agin' us" shite?

They're laughing their socks off.

If this recap from GOT is true (and Elstone isn't lying) then there seems to be some positives. Mainly that there are some funds in the pot for January (meagre I know but at least not linked to selling, would like to know how Rodwell's add ons are structured though and if and when we'll ever see that extra £5 million).

Some positves, very few I would think. No money or very little; a bad economic forecast for last season; banks still holding us to ransom and probably encouraging us to sell the likes of Baines, Fellaini et al; mysterious buyers, who seem to disappear as soon they look at the club close up.

Unless a big fat rabbit is pulled from the hat very very soon, then – make no mistake – this club is not going to achieve a great deal in the coming seasons.

How long have the toilet facilities been made of gold? £300k?!? – I wish I had become a plumber.

Rory, Thanks for the quite detailed report.

Unfortunately, Robert Elstone has twisted the truth slightly. He has to, because the truth would be far less palatable.

AGMs weren't stopped because of the proxy issue. They were stopped because they couldn't answer the questions anymore. The club was in financial meltdown, they had embarked on a complete non-starter of a stadium project that was supported only by lies and they had been found out... The current incumbents had no plan and had been found out. Consequently, the SHAREHOLDERS were in open revolt... nothing to do with proxies at all.

On one occasion, I did give my invite up to a proxy (as I was out of the country) who did pose some painful questions to the board. As the head of LCC and a season ticket holder for decades I think he was entitled to pose questions, especially as he was responding to lies aimed at the council. The board wilted when they realised who was asking the questions, as they could no longer lie.

The stadium statements are also laughable. These people have either no idea whatsoever, or they are determined to hide on this issue. Liverpool are adding 15k seats for £150m. This doesn't mean that it's £10k per seat has it may actually be more than 20k new seats dependent on the breakdown. There may also be anything from 50-150 new boxes... the cost may also include the new hotel development.

The bottom line is they will end up with a 60k+ stadium and all ancillaries for less than half the price of the Stanley Park stadium i.e. it is often the cheaper option. As far as acquiring houses LFC already own most of them because they planned ahead.

The council thing is another inaccuracy. The planning department is headed by an Evertonian as is the council itself. The planning officer has stated repeatedly over the years that they are very open to redevelopment proposals, and that there are possibilities that haven't yet been explored as the club have simply not asked. Therefore, it's far more easy to conclude that most of these utterances are far more likely to be "lip-service" prompted purely by the simple fact that LFC have disproved the club's long held defensive stance. They are continually found out or proven wrong.

They are also not the only club who engages the fans in forums.

Since I started this thread (though as a short comment on another thread which was transposed to its own question), here is my $0.02:

I thought the club did well in holding this event last night. I don’t think it was intended as an AGM replacement at all, more of a contact event with longstanding (10 years+) season ticket holders – of which there are apparently 8,691. I remember the days when gatherings of football fans would meet and talk about football rather than finances and thankfully more of the former was done than the latter. However, since I was the individual who posed the AGM question – as a genuine question from a shareholder with an interest in attending AGM, not with any prior agenda – I listened very carefully to Robert Elstone’s answer.

Rory Slingo’s posted summary above I think is broadly correct. Some of the comments on here stating that answers were given linking the BU to the AGM closure are completely wrong and misrepresentative, and I think indicate more what some people want to hear rather than what was actually said. The issues of AGM and BU were discussed in the answer given to my question but were not linked as cause and effect.

I think Robert Elstone answered this question fairly and honestly, as I think he answered all questions posed to him all evening. He stayed for the whole event and answered further questions outside of his allotted slot as these were posed. I don’t think anyone should confuse the fact that you may not like the answer given with open and honest intent in giving such answers: the CEO job at Everton is clearly not an easy one.

Some other points that I don’t think have been given here:

It is clear that the events around the BU recording and transcript have been very damaging and counterproductive in terms of trust from club officials and this will take time to repair. I personally think that not holding AGMs has been a mistake on behalf of the club, however difficult the meetings were. My opinion is that it is a very difficult line to tread in being transparent with fans and retaining necessary levels of confidentiality around some issues which are key to any business;

The statement given above that the club now agrees with the KEIOC statement about redevelopment is also wholly wrong. The actual answer given was that redevelopment of Goodison would necessitate significant reduction of revenue streams from the stadium for around 2, 3 or 4 seasons which would clearly affect ability to operate which brings us back to the Catch-22 of investment needed to go forward, as well as difficulties in negotiations with Prudential who retain interest in the real estate but have apparently been unreasonably difficult to deal with.

I was quite surprised by the answers given around additional TV revenue in future seasons. The indication given was that this would be used in investment in Everton rather than straightforward debt reduction which was what I would have expected.

Also, the club is investigating the use of “print at home” tickets after the Leyton Orient issues, when around 1,500 turned up at the ticket office just before kick off when 700-800 had been predicted. No attempt to defend or gloss over this problem was made, but an admission of culpability and an intent to fix in the future. Airline-style ticketing would help to alleviate this.

And lastly, it was chilli not scouse served as the buffet. How could anyone possibly get that wrong?

Why stop the AGM's if there is nothing to hide? You don't like the questions (or they "bore" you)? Then ask a reasonable price and get the fuck out.

I'm tired of us being losers. You should be too. End of.

Trust Everton??? Is it anywhere near starting yet?? It may not be the panacea for all our woes but it has to be a step in the right direction. How long does it take to dot the i and cross the t?

Tom Hughes #272, Tom if you are the same guy I've read over the years detailing how redevelopment at Goodison might be made to work I think you have a deep and respected understanding of the issue, but regardless and genuinely with respect, I think your post makes Liverpool's stadium efforts seem heroic and a master class in stadium development. This weeks announcements about LFC's stadium development are not about "planning ahead" and good management. The news is actually a very public climbdown, an acceptance that the club has been mismanaged beyond belief over the last ten years and an absolute disgrace in terms of how LCC have allowed a decade of decay and planning stagnation to be glossed over as if this is some kind of gold standard in regeneration.

The new owners are spinning like crazy. You cannot move from years of the club insisting that the new stadium is vital to, well, a stance that seems to suggest it hardly matters at all, without asking one simple question..... "If LFC had the money wouldn't they jump at continuing with a new stadium build rather than redeveloping Anfield...? The answer is a very easy yes. LFC are not shifting positions because its what they really want to do, it's because the owners will not contemplate spending £400m or more in the hope that this will deliver a Premiership and European Cup. The money isn't there and hasn't been for ten years. Everton are slaughtered for bigging up our stadium dreams, but LFC have done nothing different for a decade, yet destroying lives, blighting a whole community, is just a breeze for the club who can do no wrong in the eyes of LCC.

There is a new "view" emerging that its somehow childish and wrong to criticise LCC for treating the clubs differently and apparently that's rubbish because some of the boys in charge at LCC are blues.....well just as many are I'm sure reds, and many Councillors are not remotely bothered about football when their politics are very local and very much caught up in the daily nightmare that is associated with a ConDem Government. LFC have been allowed to get away with a disgusting attitude to the local community who they court only when it suits them, yet the club are treated like saviours when announcing what everyone knew to be the truth for years, they can't find the money to build a new stadium and have simply shit all over their fans and local residents for ten years.

As for us ? Well Tom and others cannot be all wrong in whatever they say about EFC and the Board. The irony is surely that our mistakes are scrutinised at every turn and the Club is slaughtered whatever it try's to do to dig itself out of what is I accept, a hole of our own making. But there is absolutely nothing to admire about the way LFC and LCC are allowed to create a myth that redeveloping Anfield is suddenly what they wanted all along. It's not planning ahead it's an admission that the money's run out and competing with Manchester and parts of London is a long way off.

My despair is that EFCs brilliant management of the footballing side, despite huge financial handicaps, cannot hide the fact that the club remains in an ever decreasing circle where only a multi billionaire can provide the carefree investment that will propel us forward. Other than that the strategy is actually very clear and it's becoming more and more obvious. The Board, and chief fan Bill, have a dream that we can defeat the financial nightmare by taking a route which is several decades in the making. I think "we" now really believe that the team and manager can dig us out of the mess by building a squad that, amazingly, can qualify for the CL and can start to win things. From there slow development may take place. Not a new stadium, but maybe, just maybe, a new tier on the Park End, 20 more exec boxes and a sense that footballing achievement, albeit painfully slow, can happen in spite of the financial woes. It's all a bit amateur, all a bit sticking plaster, and not at all what any expert or the BU or many fans hope for, but I think that's the plan now and frankly as I can't see ANYTHING else working any more, I'm all for it, especially as I'm sick of the history being raked over time and again to no real value. It is what it is, EFC is, well, EFC, and I still wouldn't swop us for anyone else, not anyone.

Excellent summaries by Rory Slingo #249, Peter Cross #243 and Mark Wilson#386. As an old-arse, I need to print them out and study them carefully.

Thanks to all three of you.

As a former (26 years) season ticket holder who moved away and got old, it's refreshing to find that there are a few real attenders out there on TW, and that the world is not populated by people who've hardly ever been to Goodison, but watch Sky, paint their front doors blue and think that makes them life-long Evertonians.

Happy to see that you all seem to rate Robert Elstone.

Mark 386 one of the points you appear to miss is LFCs plans re the stadium have always considered the fans, Stanley Park or Anfield is nothing like as divisive as what our chumps are up to.

Doubling the cost for moving 200 yds into Stanley Park to get the same 60k capacity is ludicrous and is an inheritance of the previous nutters H & G.

I have no doubt they'll complete this plan making Elstones diversionary tactics even more ludicrous than they are today.

Thanks for all the above posts, any information is better than no information even if it's misinformation. I do feel we underestimate the changing football landscape. The BT money is a huge injection of cash and clubs would be crazy to see it go the way of player wages. Financial fair play rules should encourage greater governance and a more level playing field. No good news on the ground and you can begin to understand why the owners of EFC aren't keen to let go of their asset.

A number of good things mentioned in that report, investment of increased funds into the club & business, limiting wages, clarity over stadium redevelopment intentions, engaging those supporters who deserve to be heard the most (albeit a slightly sanitised group the club want to influence no doubt).

Clarity too about the amount of bad feeling generated by BU ridiculing Kenwright in a very personal way last year over the publicised meetings which was the action of schoolyard bully. Notable that the tone of BU actions (those we have heard of ) has become severely muted this year and those belligerant comments on forums such as this have ceased - coordinated?

Toms criticism of CEO 'bendings of the truth' are well made but also involve a fair bit of manipulation too, possibly quite unconciously. Thats what we all do when trying to push a point and most of us are well attuned.

The admission that there was collusion with LCC to get someone in an AGM who would ask questions putting the board on the back foot is revealing. This has been denied in the past. Regardless of the number of times someone has been a customer of a business in the past they have no right to attend a meeting of shareholders where priorities are quite different to those of the customer. The vast majority of shareholders already know what the club is doing without the need for an AGM and there is no obligation for an AGM to be held. Those who abused the privilege are the cause of the lack of an AGM now surely? You actively sought to embarrass the board, supported a movement to cripple the business of the club and are now critical of the board doing exactly what any other board would have done? Single shareholders still have the right to ask questions of the board, they just can't do so while grandstanding to the crowd.

I can see exactly what you mean. Thomas, by 'a fair bit of manipulation ... to push a point'!

Yes Thomas, "those supporters that deserve to be heard" what pompous nonsense.

Are you a distant relation of Marie "let them eat cake" Antoinette?

Mark,
My references to Liverpool are simply in direct response to our CEO's comments regarding their stadium announcement. Isn't it peculiar that LFC never feel the need to comment on our serial stadium failures? I can only assume that a club that has delivered nothing, and only ever demonstrated incompetence on all things "stadium" needs to distract from their own mishaps........ I agree and am eternally grateful that LFC have been poorly managed over the past decade, no doubt not helped by their own ownership woes. However, I think you are also being quite revisionist in your assessment of our club's and LFC's recent comparative histories, performances and LCC's involvement.

Liverpool's current owners had nothing to do with the decision to move into the Park. It is something they inherited. If anything they have real form in the field of redevelopment as a preferred option, as demonstrated with what they did at Fenway and this has been highlighted many times since they took over. So I'm not sure this is in any way a climbdown as much as simple pragmatism. The bottom line is: they will still achieve their ultimate objective of 60+k seats with substantial corporate and hospitality facilities and perhaps even scope to expand further if necessary. This is partly because previous regimes invested in their stadium and managed to acquire most of the surrounding property over a number of yrs, meaning that there was always an option to redevelop. A plan B if you like. Meanwhile our leaders have invested nothing and systematically sold off all our property assets (including those bordering the stadium itself) just to stay afloat and/or fund their ownership. Unlike LFC's owners, our lot haven't been there for 5 mins. They have been involved for well over a decade. An era during which nearly ALL other club's have addressed all of their stadium issues...... investing in both on and off-field assets simultaneously, regularly outspending us in both categories. Some have completely re-invented themselves, and not only the ones with mega-rich sugar-daddies.

I also find the assertion that LFC is responsible for Anfield's blight a bit waywardly over-dramatic, overly-simplistic and needlessly distracting. There is a lot of dereliction and urban decay in inner city Liverpool (and elsewhere for that matter). Some whole areas have decayed to the point of being completely cleared all over Anfield, Vauxhall, Everton, Kirkdale, Kensington, Dingle, Garston, Walton and many more, so the few streets alongside LFC's mainstand are hardly substantial or noteworthy by any measure. They are in real terms a drop in the ocean regardless of our blue-tinted moral-high ground claims. It should also be remembered that EFC have in the past knocked down whole streets of local housing in order to expand. In fact they did this long before LFC ever did so we shouldn't be overly-selective.

I also think LCC's part in these episodes is also misrepresented for a convenient distraction. Nearly all of the urban renewal schemes have stagnated in recent yrs for various reasons. Again, most of these are much bigger than a few streets alongside their ground. So, how is LCCs current co-operation in any way significant? They have a developer trying to move something forward and are acting on it. Why wouldn't they? Meanwhile our lot have chased white elephants, failed miserably when gifted great opportunities (by the same LCC) and can't even boast full ownership of everything on their own site. Who would you be more likely to work with to move things forward? For all LFC's mistakes and deficiencies of recent yrs (and there are many), they dwarf us in terms of turnover and resources, therefore you would think it would have been essential for our lot to have boxed far more cleverly over the years. They haven't, and no amount of misplaced or irrelevant comparisons should distract from that! I don't believe the club has ever been "slaughtered for their stadium dreams"..... they have been fairly criticised for their whole wasteful and misguided approach to the issue, and their poor execution. By their own admission, the retail-led out-of-town model was a complete failure that they were warned about repeatedly at the time. Yet time and again, we were told that this was our only option!? The previous Kings Dock failure was reprehensible, and a dereliction of duty. Both of these are IMO "slaughterable" offences....... so, I'm not sure why your defensive stance or references to LFC are warranted. Our failures are numerous, glaring and can stand alone!

On the playing side, our manager has indeed been brilliant in assembling a gifted side on the meager finances he's managed to generate himself. Not sure what any of that has to do with LFC's or our club's respective stadium development schemes though. What Moyes has achieved has been despite the board and not because of anything they have provided, invested or delivered. For all intents and purposes they have brought nothing to the party. They have added no value whatsoever, and my biggest fear is that all of Moyes' hard work will be wasted yet again when we have to sell key personnel just to survive. Then when he leaves where will we be? Still in the most antiquated stadium in the prem, with no medium or long term plan, or direction. I also wouldn't swap us for anyone, but I would happily swap our board for our pet hamster with no fear of any adverse effects, such has been their ineffectual and impotent input.

Thomas,
When have I ever denied anything? I'm a shareholder, I was always entitled to elect a proxy to attend AGM's. I did it of my own volition having been involved in various meetings with LCC and the planning dept regarding the redevelopment option. The club lied continuously about the redevelopment option when pushing for Kirkby. They hadn't undertook full appraisal of this option and certainly hadn't worked exhaustively with LCC to this end. Therefore, I knew that they wouldn't be able to fob off the horses mouth if he was in attendance. If I had been able to attend I would've asked the same questions. Proxies are not illegal! I could've invited pretend Evertonians with pretend investors..... but the club had beaten me to it to get out of previous failures.

For all the criticism of Keioc, BU or me, perhaps it should be remembered that none of these have been responsible for our clubs failures. We didn't lose Kings Dock or chase the unfeasible/undesirable DK. We didn't try to build something on land we didn't own..... we didn't sell a training facility to rent one....... We didn't sell everything off, we didn't change a clubs 100+yr constitution to avoid valid criticism at AGMs. This board did ALL this!!!

Any uttererances from EFC on the ground issue should be treated with extreme caution.

The track record is incompetence, deception and failure. Historically, even as far back as Johnson(money ringfenced as well!), bullshit is king ¬hing is ever as it appears.

Breakdown of trust? Yes. I don't believe them anymore, I havent for years, pre-Kirkby, which was feeble......so feeble on every level. The way the club approached it was contemptable.

As for the Blue Union, honestly, on major issues forget them, theyre done.

I may be wrong, but I could have sworn that LCC tried to enter into dialogue with the club during the DK debacle, only to be told that we couldn't talk to any other parties, because of stipulations put into place by those involved in DK.

Joe Clitherow and Mark Wilson

Thanks for all the information provided from this meeting, I think meeting fans is far more progressive than AGMs. I hope that they continue with these meetings, as I am sure match going fans will ask as many difficult questions as some shareholders.

Regarding Elstone commenting on LFC, I presume this was in relation to a question about why they chose to rebuild rather than move, as we have been told the club don't see that as an alternative for us. So again highlights my point that fans do ask the right questions.

I read Tom Hughes comments with interest especially his belief that the Fenway group are delivering the best possible option by redeveloping rather than rebuilding. I think it is a question of them reverting to type as that is exactly what they did with Fenway Park, I am sure this was an option for Arsenal but they chose to build a new stadium and are now possibly the most cash rich club compared to Chelsea,City and United. I will also be interested to see how LFC redevelop without losing capacity during the redevelopment.

"Thanks for all the information provided from this meeting, I think meeting fans is far more progressive than AGMs. I hope that they continue with these meetings, as I am sure match going fans will ask as many difficult questions as some shareholders."

I must respectfully disagree with you. Those AGM's alllowed supporters that have bought shares in the club to ask serious questions of our Board. AGM's lead to accountability and responsibility; a fans forum is just PR.

It is unacceptable for the Board to change its articles of association just because 30% of the sharholders are holding them to account over many different issues. Nothing to do with proxies they just didn't like being held to account and being unable to control this impertinent 30%.

Brian, I hate to say it, but at least the shite have a board who are trying to move forward, while we have a board who do, well........what?

Mark Wilson # 386 you say ;

"where only a multi billionaire can provide the carefree investment that will propel us forward."

Why do some people & the media always insist obscene amounts of money are required to take this club forward ?

We currently have a board who invest nothing in the club except time. They have not exactly been visionary businessmen have they ?

Maybe someone who could slowly clear the debt, improve facilities and give the manager backing would be a massive improvement ?

Barry 395 - I agree.

It depends how many corporate boxes would go in a new ground over what you can fit in Anfield. £40 for a basic ticket, or £150 with a bit of scram and a beer or two.

Kevin Tully #432

You final paragraph.... What colour is the sky on your planet?

Ken, you may not know this, but T.V revenues are due to rise by 70% from next season.

BT have paid £800m just for a small percentage of live games.

There is currently no plan in place to improve G.P.

Combine this T.V. money with investment by a board with a bit of vision & forward planning - we could stop the decline of the club off the field.

Impossible from your perspective ?

Kevin, not only am I aware of the increase, I'm also aware that the club has indicated that it has no intention of passing the increase straight onto the players.

But if you think that our share of £800m will enable us to "...slowly clear the debt, improve facilities and give the manager backing...", I repeat my question, "What colour is the sky on your planet?"

Ken - why do you have to be on another planet to suggest that a board with the prospect of increased revenue should use it to do the 3 things that Kevin was arguing for. After all what would be the point of having a board in the first place if not managing resources and planning ahead?

Ken, the current deal is worth i.r.o. £50m a season, so if reports are correct, we will receive another £35m on top of that.

We will only ever be fighting the debt with the current board in place - so I have no idea what your juvenile " what colour is the sky....." digs are supposed to mean to be honest.

IF we had a NEW board who had money to invest, AND combine that with a medium term plan to improve G.P. I really don't see any obstacle to developing the ground.

If you don't believe that is possible, that's fine.

I think the stadium issue does need looking at again. Liverpool's recent announcement (excellently attired in the best possible spin) is a purely financial decision and has nothing whatsoever to do with traditional home, great history bullshit.

Henry has acknowledged publicly that the real revenue streams lie far away from the match-going 40 quid a ticket buyers, he realises that Liverpool have a sizable worldwide following and wants to cash in on that, rather than trying to sell what will be overpriced tickets to a comunity that is struggling to pay the current asking price.

We are different in the fact that our fanbase is nowhere near that of United or Liverpool and it would take a sustained 20-year period of success to get anywhere close in my opinion.

I doubt that we could fill a 50,000-seater stadium on more than maybe two occasions per season. It's obvious that the corporate facilities need looking at, and the restricted views that blight three quarters of the stadium need addressing, there is no reason why this cannot be done at Goodison. Elstone's loss of revenue argument is a red herring imo, the club have had ample opportunities in the past and one on the way where the extra income from TV deals could be set aside against the losses of gate revenue during redevelopment.

Tom (#418)

I would think it was down to the Shareholders Association to lobby for the reinstatement of AGMs? Does this organisation have any teeth?

Barry (#414)

Marie-Thérèse of Austria, wife of Louis XIV uttered that phrase at least 100 years before; there is no evidence to suggest Marie Antionette ever did. It's a popular urban myth though, a bit like Everton and new "investors"...

Kevin #446

IF my Auntie had balls she'd be...

You now seem to have dropped two of your priorities.

I'm off to the game!!

Ken, I actually believe you would fit in quite well on our board.

Regarding debt and increased tv revenue, Elstone says debt is stable. It isn't increasing but, despite the wage bill reductio(Yak, Yobo big earners& others), transfer fees generated(Beckford, Vaughan Piennar Yak)and cost cutting that took place(countless players loaned), its not been reduced.

That is worrying. So how much benefit we may get from this new tv deal will be interesting. If I was a creditor of EFC I suppose I would be more relaxed knowing its on the way.

Ground. Redevelopment is not an option for this board, forget it they will not entertain it and will employ all kinds of smoke n mirrors to discredit it. However Elstone says they have plans for a new development in the city. Requires help from the council to bridge the funding gap?

Plans is very vague. Have they a site? Design? If so what is the level of funding required? How do they propose to bridge the funding gap? If the council can only go so far then how do EFC propose to jump that hurdle? And consider this: these pricks went to the DK public enquiry unable to show where ANY of the finance for EFC's contribution was coming from.

The council are getting involved with LFC because they have a credible plan.

We have?????

Brian Harrison,

Firstly.... I never said I believed it was their best option. I have no idea if it is or not. They have looked at the options and it works for them. They can readily demonstrate how to expand without loss of capacity, as the existing lower tiers will stay throughout the phases. None of this is unusual.

It certainly never was an option for Arsenal. Both side stands were/are listed structures with no scope for expansion. The end stands had some scope at one end........ in otherwords they were looking forward to max of approx 42k capacity with few extra corporate. So to compare to LFC or us is complete nonsense.

Tom Hughes

I will be very interested to see how they increase their gate to approx 60k and do not have a shortfall in capacity. I know you state that the bottom tiers will remain, but as far as I was aware no date has been set for the work to start and I havent seen any detailed plans for the refurbishment have you?

I would have thought that if they plan to rival Man Utds revenue from gate receipts then a 60,000 stadium wont do that. We hear that their fanbase worldwide is as big as Man Utds I doubt that but if they believe that surely they should be looking to build a 75k stadium. As if they are right with their estimate of their fanbase they would sell out every home game.

I know that our board have made a lot of mistakes but thank god they didnt think it would be a good idea to have a fly on the wall documentary that is screened weekly. How cringingly embarrasing is that and even worse their manager buys into it, he even has his own take on the 3 card trick except in his case its the 3 envelopes. I can only imagine he will have to send out for more envelopes if their poor form continues, and if he is honest his own name should be in one of the envelopes. So yes things need improving on many fronts at Goodison but thankfully our club will not lose its dignity in the process.

Oh spare the dignity line Brian, we lost our dignity a long time ago with the kings doc fiasco and Kirkby not to mention the Everton place project. Our chairman lying on TV about safety certificates and dividing the fan base by showing his mush on the screen as goals go in. Cringe-worthy truly cringe-worthy incidents !!

Some very good information on the meeting here, thank you those who went or obtained transcripts.

Tom Hughes @418:

You raise the usual red herrings about the wrongdoings of the board but like that from the BU activists it’s all criticism without any answers or any consideration of the positive things happening to the club or how well comparatively the club has done in recent years under the custodianship of the current board and management team.

Remember that we are in the good position that we are team wise without investment from the board’s own pockets. That isn’t a fault of the board though, they don’t have to put their own money into the club and they would be certifiable if they did. The club stopped the AGMs because they were legally entitled to and I for one don’t blame them given the provocation that they get from activists who are wholly hostile to them.

The board did not sell everything off, they sold physical assets to buy mobile assets and pay their wages. I ask again, do you want an Everton-owned training ground and Championship football or what we have now? We are where we are now because we’ve sold and borrowed in exchange for playing strength.

We didn’t lose KD because we never had the money to achieve it. Even DK which in the end was a disaster was at least an attempt to solve some of the club’s problems. They got it wrong which with the benefit of 20:20 hindsight is easy to criticize.

What this club management team has done and for me has done well, is to keep us afloat and in a relatively strong position for a financially small club with comparatively low income. That they haven’t achieved what you have personally expected is irrelevant; it is how they have done compared with the expectations of the reasonable fan; most accept that they have a very difficult balancing act of EPL survival against solvency and they do it well considering.

The club is for sale; only an idiot would buy it or otherwise put in the investment required to put us on a sustainable footing. What would you have done and what would you do now? Negative criticism is easy and it is the only trick that people like you and the BU have yet it is the last thing the club needs. Oh yes, where is the BU now? Where is Trust Everton — the only constructive entity that I have seen enter the argument?

EFC is held up as a shining example by most in the game and the vast majority of EFC fans because they are doing well despite having no money, because they have a long-term manager that they have stood by, because they have an eccentric Everton supporter as CEO, and because we have a strong, loyal and mainly tolerant fan base.

The only cloud over EFC is, amazingly, a tiny and very bitter minority of its own fans who the board feels are trying to undermine it from below. You couldn’t make it up, could you? Yes, they've made mistakes; yes, we could perhaps have done things better — but nothing is that simple.

Its about time this trait, of defining ourselves as what Liverpool arent, was kicked into touch.

Ive got to be honest Brian, I just find those comments bizarre. We have serial fuck ups over ground moves, and there have been so many other events that have sapped the morale of Evertonians over the last decade under this board(and the two previous regimes).

However all is well as we havent made a cheesey yank doc!! Dignity intact!!

The possibility that this board appear to be sleep walking the club into a cul de sac that contains a very bleak future is clearly a side issue!

Over 10 years since the dock, still nothing other than apparent vague talk.

Its pathetic.

Its clear we are at Goodison for getting on the next decade, and there will be no development at all as that would involve..........spending money. Can you imagine what Goodison is going to look like in 10 years???? And thats me optimistically hoping these pricks can get their shit together on a move. Remember they have produced nothing workable for a DECADE.

We are financially capped and cant progress the club and are heavily, some would say totally, reliant on the transfer wizard budget balancing manager.

With him in charge we are almost playing with loaded dice. I am genuinely concerned what happens should he leave. Im not saying it could be game over but he is the reason we are consistently overcoming the budgetary odds, the Gibson sigining being a classic example, 500k ffs. We didnt pay much more less Martin Dobson 40 years ago!!

This issue is paramount and approaching critical status.

held a season ticket for 30 years and never got an invite, either by email or through the post (and the club most definitely have my address and email on file)

some interesting snippets of what went on at the forum/meeting

thanks for all of the updates

Stu Moore

I too have had a season ticket for more than 40 years and didnt get an invite, but I applaud the club for holding a meeting with and I stress match going Evertonians.

Despite being critisized for some of their mistakes, I genuinely believe that they are a lot more fan friendly than many clubs. I know that this site is inundated with people who constantly moan about our current board and in some cases they are right, but never come on and say anything good that they might do. Yes KD was an opportunity missed I think even Elstone has acknowledged that point, and we are fortunate to have a very good manager who despite a lack of resources has kept the club in the top half of the league for most of his time here.

Brian, How you can say we've kept our dignity is beyond me.

The well documented Kings Dock failure, the Tesco "free" stadium and the knocking down of the wall and moving the Dixie Dean statue for the Park End development were anything but dignified.

And I won't even mention practically begging Liverpool to let us share their ground.

This board has absolutely no dignity whatsoever.

So AGMs are better than Fans Conferences? When you consider 8 years having season tickets is around £3,600 investment, which is over double the price of a share at EFC, then you can argue that the Fans Conference is more suited to the fans than an AGM.

As usual, BU and others use the cancellation of the AGMs as a reason to kick the Board but it’s nothing more than a smoke screen. The truth of the matter is actually different: holding shares at a minor level is completely useless investment in my opinion and is nothing more than an emotional attachment to your club.

I looked into this about 5 years ago and got all my forms from Blankstone & Sington and was prepared to purchase shares at £1,350 each plus duty and commission... but, when I slept on it, and realised that I would never get a dividend and be lucky to re-sell if ever I needed to, then all you had was an invite to the AGM left. So that’s why they are all angry: they hold shares that are pretty much worthless!

It’s the match-going fans that are the heart of the club and if you do hold shares then you do so for your own reasons but don’t expect special treatment when, by law, the club don’t have too. If you want to be controversial, you could argue a good case that EFC are being far more inclusive than they have ever been by cancelling the AGM in favour of a Fans Conference — after all, if the minor shareholders attended games, then they shouldn’t have a problem applying to attend the Fans Conference, should they?

Brian,
I assume they will achieve it in the same way that several other clubs have...... by building new tiers behind and above existing ones (as they did with the centenary stand, as Newcastle, Sunderland several others also did). This has also been intimated in the reports. A new tier above and behind the existing mainstand would allow the complete redevelopment of a new Anfield road stand without ever dropping below their current capacity.

We don't know the final capacity so whether it competes with Man U or anyone else is anyone's guess. That will also be dependent on ticket prices and exec box prices etc. Juventus have purposely limited capacity at their new stadium to keep prices high, perhaps this is Liverpool's thinking also. The point is however, that they will significantly increase their matchday revenues and finally be able to meet some of the demand for additional capacity that is currently untapped. I think this will have a far greater effect on their fortunes than whether or not we scoff at their TV programme, and any perceived loss of dignity. More people will get access, and more will be hooked for the future that currently can't. Anfield has held them back for years..... this can only ever be a step in the right direction.

Martin,

You've been laughed off every other thread..... so I'll not bite thanks

Alan,

What about shareholders with several shares who have also had season tickets for decades? Shares haven't always been so cheap. I think at one point they were up to 5 figures, and mine certainly cost several times the figure you quote; however, it isn't that type of investment so I'm not at all bothered personally.

I also know several long serving shareholders and season ticket holders (who don't miss any games, anywhere) who were not invited. Regardless, the shareholders are aggrieved because they have always had the right to question the club... this was written into the club's Articles of Association by its founding fathers.

The great Will Cuff was insistent that the shareholders should always be able to hold the board accountable, and this is what they were doing at the time of the Destination Kirkby debacle. Unfortunately the board couldn't answer the questions anymore (we now know why), and each AGM was becoming a public humiliation for them....... that is the only reason we no longer have them. Fan's forums may be helpful too, but they can never be a replacement "if you know your history".

apolgies..... that should've read 5 figures of course (ie £10k)

Presumably the club prefers to have Fans Forums rather than AGMs because they can wheel out Jags, Bainesy and Sharpy, and talk about what is going on on the pitch, rather than answer the more pertinent questions that shareholders might ask in an AGM?

I cant see how people think that a group of minority shareholders would put more pressure or ask more difficult questions than a forum for match going Evertonians.

I know a lot of posters on here think our board is bad, but I had a quick look at Matt Slaters blog about the Arsenal AGM. He is a shareholder and said of their last AGM that owner Stan Kronke was making only his second visit since he bought the club, apparantly Kronke said I beleive you would like to hear what I have to say but I cant think why. All the questions had to be written before the AGM and no follow up questions were allowed.

Matt Slater went on to say that this board make the Soviet Politburu look like a student union entertainment committee.

Mind it seems many clubs now have absentee owners, who only visit the club a couple of times a year. Mind maybe fans don't want to have a chairman who cares passionately about the club as long as he keeps putting the money in. Although I would think to have such dispassionette owners then they would look to dispose of the club when they got bored. Unlike Abromovich who has been a loyal fan even before he bought the club, I also understand that on his death if he still owns the club all debts would be paid from his estate and a further £500 million on top will be donated to the club. Now thats the sort of owner that BK is looking for unfortunately they are exceedingly rare.

Brian,
AGMs could be attended by hundreds, who are not hand-picked. The main point being that they are literally part owners who have paid for that privilege with a complete disregard for any perks or profit.

You mention Arsenal..... when to be honest the comparison stops when you say they STILL have AGM's. The rest is irrelevant, although you could go on and say that pre-prem days they were no bigger than us and even had a stadium with less seats than ours...... since then they've built one of the best club stadiums in the world, doubled their average attendance, grown their fanbase and their turnover dwarves ours several times over. They even spent more on the old Highbury than we have spent on GP......You could also list what they've won in the same period...... I don't think there can be any argument about which board has done more for their respective club. Yes, we're above them at the moment, but which position would you really rather be in?

Tom Hughes

I guess that we just have different opinions on this and football is all about opinions.

Ken Crowther – I watch us on Sky; I've painted my front door royal blue... but, due to where I live, finance, raising a family, etc etc, after 50 years supporting Everton, I suppose I better fuck off then...

Tom

Except in your case, a participant in an AGM WAS hand-picked -– by you. See the similarity?

There are no AGMs because some small shareholders were abusing the privilege by forcing EGMs until they got the answer they wanted to hear, that was what threatened to cripple the business of the club. The board defended itself – rightly or wrongly, it is their responsibility to ensure the running of the club is not threatened. I too think that the lack of an AGM is a bad thing but to conclude that they are no longer held because the board is scared of a few awkward questions is a little simplistic.

I do sometimes think it would be interesting to allow some of the boards criticisers to run the extraordinary business that makes up a Premier League football club for 10 years and see where that would get us. Perhaps one of our board members could build a computer game on that theme?

TW debate trick number 23.

Shit, I'm getting battered here, I need a hasty retreat, he's hammering me with facts, logic and rational thinking.

Everything I come up with, he answers me with these bastard facts.

How can I wriggle out of..........GOT IT!!

Ahem!

"I guess that we just have different opinions on this and football is all about opinions"

Legs it like fuck.

Brian #719 do you not think its incredibly naive to link attendance at the ground on match days as a far more pertinent indicator of the value of a chairman or board member than their ability to run the actual business itself? Paul Gregg attended Goodison Park far more often than Earl has and yet he has never been character assassinated in the Trinity Group press. Some 30 odd thousand Evertonians have attended far more games than BK has and what's more they actually paid to get in.

Nobody actually knows what BK is looking for as over the ten years he has been here he's spun a web of lies, spin and bluster including his so called desperation to sell - well a thought for you a person desperate to sell a company doesn't go and buy more shares in it, they find a buyer and bite the bullet a the best price they can get and move on.

Don't understand how our debt can not have improved after the transfer fees (such as Arteta, Beckford etc) that must have gone to the bank and also the cuts we have made on wages... Trouble ahead if we have trimmed the squad, sold a few of our better players and still have not made a dent in the debt.

Eugene, I disagree with nearly everything you write, however, you are right, it is about opinions, but sometimes facts are also part of the discussions.

I am a Shareholder and a season ticket holder of ten years plus standing. The meeting was advertised on the website and to be honest I applied but did not get in. They have said there will be other meetings, and for a club so close to apparent administration, putting on a event with some food and drinks strikes me as really generous and something they, whoever that is, need not do.

I have been told that the issue at the heart of the AGMs is the way that the proxies behave at the meetings which is considered unreasonable and as they can not pick and choose who goes, they have cancelled the AGMs in line with Corporate governance rulings. I believe they would like meetings but ONLY the shareholders attending in person.

Someone above compares owning a season ticket and a share, the comparison is simply not valid, one gets entertained (alledgedly) and the other gets some sort of ownership of the business, for whatever reason that motivates them.

I have read on here a couple of times recently that Bill has added to his shareholding, and confess that I have written on this site twice querying why someone would do this.

For Martin, I also responded to you a few threads ago when you said he does not own the club. I explained that he is regarded in law as a controlling Director as he owns or controls/influences over 20% of the shares, it is regarded as a concert party. You did not get back to me. So, as a man who seems to dwell on being factually correct, do you want to reconsider the point you make in contribution #647 above, penultimate paragraph?

Thomas,
You may not be aware, but with every AGM invite, the shareholder is invited to elect a proxy of their choice to attend and vote in their place if they cannot. A proxy invite is included in the literature. I exercised this right, by electing to allow the leader of the council (a season ticket holder of many years) to attend to if necessary ensure no more mistruths regarding LCC were allowed without direct response.

Meanwhile, at a previous AGM, a certain Chris Samuelson (not an Evertonian and certainly not shareholder) was invited by the club to spout a whole litany of lies, yet another noteable low point...... the rest, as they say, is history!

Ian @786

Is CEO incorrect? Should I have said Chairman?

Sam @783, that's what worries me the most. It's the debt that prevents us from borrowing any more money to spend on players, stadium plans or other operations to increase turnover. IMO, the nature of these loans are also likely to be a very big part of the reason as to why we cannot attract investment. Reducing the debt would leave us on much more solid ground to operate on and make us a more attractive proposition to a buyer.

We can't keep on just paying off interest, spend the rest on playing staff and hope the stars and planets finally align for us one season. This approach has gotten us nowhere. The club's assets grow lesser every year and Moyes cannot keep turning water into wine. He may not even be here for much longer.

The road we're on is unsustainable, even the CEO has admitted that on record. But hey, why should the board worry about that when they can just kick their heels back and wait for big daddy Sky to bail them out with more TV revenue? Now they're going to put the latest windfall into 'investments' in the club, whatever those are. Yeah, well their record ain't great on that so I ain't holding my breath over here. Just pay off the debt, sell up and gtfo, please.

Tom Hughes@692

I offered you no bait so you had no need to bite. I offered you an alternative view which you aren’t willing to discuss, that's all.

You are correct in your later post that ‘the shareholders’ have the right to hold the board to account but that doesn’t mean that ‘a shareholder’ does. AGMs can be totally disrupted by agenda-driven advocates and activists but they are never allowed to and Arsenal’s approach of allowing questions from individuals as long as they are submitted in writing before the AGM is fairly normal.

It is of course right that major shareholders or an individual representing a significantly large bloc of small shareholders has the right to question the board but disruptive individual shareholders or their proxies have no such right. If you have the support of a lot of Everton fans who are also shareholders then you can leverage the little influence you have as a small shareholder by joining with them; that is shareholder democracy, I believe what you want is shareholder autocracy and anarchy? Do you have that support? I very much doubt it.

The club is where it is which is in a terrible position of debt, low income relative to its competitors, decaying infrastructure, in a deprived area of a city that has seen its best years long ago and in a state of what I’d call managed decline – not a shrinking giant but more a dying one. The current board is basically doing what it can to keep the club afloat; they quite reasonably would like to make a profit if the club is sold but a sale is unlikely and the appearance of a benevolent benefactor even more so.

They have made one last throw of the dice putting the club in hock to its creditors to achieve success on the field for a chance of organic growth which I believe is our only chance of a sustainable future. The result of failure could be lower league football or even oblivion. What would you do? What would you expect a reasonable board in the same position to have done or to do now?

Martin "The board did not sell everything off, they sold physical assets to buy mobile assets and pay their wages."

Well as everyone knows the funds from the sale of Bellefield went to the bank, not to 'mobile assets' so what other physical assets were sold to buy these mobile assets? The 2 million from the sale of Finch Farm tied into a 50 million Quid lease? How far do you think that 2 million from 10 years ago went towards 'mobile assets and their wages?"

I'd suggest that all the loans the Club has to take out are more about paying the banks (robbing Peter to Pay Paul) and to cover the ever increasing and unexplained "other operating costs"

Martin 647 — "They sold off physical assets to buy mobile assets"??? Absolute shite!!

Prove it! Show me where every penny from selling off fixed assets was used in buying mobile assets!!

As usual, your opinions are utter crap. Are you telling us that no money went to pay off loans? Be careful now what you say. The onus is on you to back up your incredible opinion.

Oh yes, and by the way you, will have to get up really early in the morning if you think you can question Tom.

Rory 814

'Investments' means purchase of players (not just additional wages, which apparently there is a consensus not to do from all 20 clubs). I'd say the club's track record in that department is possibly the best in the country on that score.

As I said though, it was a surprise to me that existing debt reduction would not be the absolute first priority for additional revenue.

Sam #783, the annual accounts should be published soon, they are usually released October time for the financial year ending the previous April so we'll soon see if the situation has worsened or improved.

Forgive my ignorance here but surely with the sale of Bellefield the debt should have decreased as there was a mortgage attached to it?

Rory Slingo, your second para is spot on.

We appear to be servicing debt, not reducing it, based on what Elstone is stating. He has also warned that the upcoming figures won't make great reading with lower gates etc. This is despite the cash dragged in.

Vague talk of new tv cash being investment in the club. What form will this take I wonder?

You would think that some would be earmarked for debt reduction, to perhaps break the cycle of debt servicing. Elstone has also, from memory, alluded to the fact the Park End project isn't dead & they are looking at that. Perhaps, they may be looking to untie themselves from the land issues that have stalled the project? I suggest this in hope rather than expectation.

But as we are at Goodison for the forseeable, we have to change things and hopefully this tv cash can be the way out as nothing else, ie: investment/ownership is presenting itself. Things are too messy.

However, who knows, all we can do is try to do is decipher things.

But how a club that currently only services debt, can look to bridge a funding gap for a stadium is going to be tricky.

I would be in favour of a Park End project, the one aired or otherwise, to ultimately generate some extra revenue while attempt to resolve the stadium issue. And on this occasion, stadium wise its shit or bust and lessons have to be learned.

We have messed up the chance to progress the club, give it the adrenaline shot it needs, whilst we have Moyes in charge. The perfect time, any time in the last decade to generate the momentum the club needs to make the jump, to break the glass ceiling.

We aren't going to get any more chances really. I hope the club can get it together and this vague, positive talk can lead somewhere we can get behind.

This is the part of the story I don't get (from the official Website) "Mr Elstone said the Club's ambition is best highlighted by the 86p in the £1 that funds Finch Farm, leaving just 14p in the £1 to run the rest of the club."

Why is a rented training ground absorbing so much money? I admit I don't have the financial savvy to understand particular aspects of running a business, but as a layman it seems somewhat curious. Perhaps some more learned people could help to explain this to me.

Martin Mason (647)

Not raising our allocation of the funding, approximately £30 million, was exactly why we DID lose out on Kings Dock, no other reason, we dithered and pontificated, reacted too late and lost the really opportunity of a lifetime.

Now I can already see you typing 'prove it' in response, so how do I know?

Well that's easy, John Keith interviewed Sir Desmond Pitcher a couple of years back and the session was played in full on City Talk. Although about his whole life, and his experiences, a large section focussed on his love for Everton, and his links to the Blues. During this interview, the subject of his involvement in the Kings Dock fiasco came up and he was very candid in his response. It went something like this:

At the time Bill was having a tough time dealing with other issues, particularly Mr Gregg, who he had been partners with but had since had a falling out. Liverpool City Council had extended the deadlines a number of times in order to allow time for the issues to be resolved, thus giving Everton enough time to secure their funding, which was circa £30 million. As time passed and what was entitled the final deadline approached, Bill got in touch with me and asked if I would be able to help at all. I said I would come to meet him and would do whatever I could. So I went to meet Bill and he told me that they needed to secure the money as soon as possible, and they had received short shrift from the banks and didn't know where too go next, I said to leave it with me, the only problem was that by this time, I only had a few weeks in which to achieve it. As it was, and is well documented we didn't secure it in time and the Council, who had run out of patience removed the preferred bidder status from Everton. I always had regret about that, because I was only just short and had I been asked a couple of weeks earlier I would have been secured more financing than ws needed, no problem, it was just that I ran out of time.

Make of that what you will, but I've never had reason to disbelieve the interview with Sir Desmond Pitcher, although I'm sure you'll find a way to !!!

John Shaw.....

I wouldn't waste your time. He see no wrong with continued and well documented failure. He's probably one of the club's "manufactured" faceless internet supporters...... created to imitate some semblance of support on these forums.

Best ignored!

Tom Hughes

Yep, sound advice, I'll take it !

Patrick (#867),

The only way to make any sense of Elstone's 86p claim is if you view all the players and their huge salaries as "Finch Farm" — not just the rented facility... Which Everton likely have to pay full maintenance costs on. But even then, it doesn't add up under scrutiny... which either the BU or KEIOC demonstrated when this number was first spouted.

A search may yield the attempted explanation.

Michael

Yes you are right. 'Finch Farm' was specifically clarified by Robert Elstone at the meeting to be inclusive of all playing matters, including players' salaries.

Thanks for that Michael , we wait with baited breath. However , it does raise the question - what exaclty does Everton Football Club comprise of and if you're correct in your assumption , who the heck wold buy something that is only worth a meagre 14% of the entire business.

Tom Hughes, various posts and other contributions suggest that much of this debate remains about opinion and interpretation of information, not all of it "fact" and I guess that's the way it's been for many years now. Tom, I see that you have to "get up very early" to take you on, which is a little daunting, so hope a late night qualifies.

Your rebuttal of my post was as ever well written but frankly mostly opinion I thought, so no white flag here and I say that realising that you risk getting "laughed off threads everywhere" for contributing. I can see that Martin has his detractors and I just can't agree with some of his thoughts but here's the thing, frustrating though it is for some, there are many who will echo his views. They are seen as sheep by those who march, but then those who march are actually a few hundred compared to the many thousand who just don't give a toss about "threads" like these and surprisingly don't think that makes them ignorant and somehow continue to support BK and the CEO etc and don't feel that the BU are going about there business in a way that they want to be part of... Personally I still feel that so much of the BU financial argument deserves better consideration but then why would people bother when so often to do so is to then risk getting battered and laughed off sites etc. I'm not wheeling to Martins aid particularly but if you ask 40,000 Evertonians which people to laugh at re the Everton debate I think the result will not upset Martin. Why is that when so much sense is talked re our finances and things really are still precarious ? Perhaps he's not that isolated after all but then the inevitable abuse and dismissal will again follow.

Anyway Tom, just to say the following :
I'm aware that there are other examples of planning blight in Liverpool, and some disappointing stories about regeneration. None of which suggests that this should excuse LFC for a decade of failing to deliver on gung ho promises and nor does it excuse LCC for allowing it to go on and on and on. I see your not happy with my apparently "distracting comments" re the emotional impact of LFC and LCC inspired planning blight and its all just dismissed as a minor issue about a "few streets around Anfield". Sorry Tom but as far as I know you and I haven't had life shattered by the impossibility of trying to sell your house in that area whilst LFC dick about with the Council when the world knows that at no time since planning permission was granted have the club seemed to have had access to £350m they needed to make the PR a reality. I saw residents reacting to last weeks news about redeveloping Anfield and it was quite emotional and they didn't seem to care that its all ok "as its happened before in the city".
I accept that by comparison EFC have hardly been heroes in their own new stadium efforts, how could anyone suggest otherwise ? But then LCC did give them two extensions to the KD deadline to raise £30m and that amounted to all of a year following preferred bidder status. Crumbs, lucky us. LCC waited a year, lets be generous and 18m, whilst giving LFC a decade to eventually fail to act on their planning permission. There are differences in the projects of course, but my sense remains that had LFC been unable to raise the funds we'd still have a car park where the Echo Arena now stands. Just my opinion. However, none of that excuses the Board or Bill for what seems to me to be the appalling error of judgement that was focusing on a row with an ex best friend when, as Mr Pitcher clearly highlights, earlier positive action could have seen the £30m raised.....if I've got that wrong I wish Bill or the CEO would recognise the importance of telling us the truth of what really happened, even if its painful.
The KD mess drove the Kirkby mess, it was desperate times and I got that wrong myself and wished I better understood the KEIOC arguments. But then I remain disgusted at the actions of LCC with their private sector friends and the other councils, and though not a debate for here right now, the politics of the DK project did not deserve the alliances forged with Evertonians, whatever the rights and wrongs of Kirkby.
As for the thing that started this thread off...the end of AGMs.....it's an own goal. I think there have been powerful points made about the positive side of the new Fans Conference approach. But because of the hatred and the abuse and the sheer personal nature of things now I can't say I'm surprised that BK opts out of the annual going over by shareholders and proxies. He's wrong though and Robert Elstone would in my view take it head on. He's a good man and a skilled CEO but his job is too often to defend the indefensible, though I wish folk would listen to him more readily as he's far more open and pragmatic than given credit for.

Tom, it can't be wrong that you can eloquently state your position or that I and others can comment, even dare I say disagree. Your grasp of the detail is often superior and the same can at times be said for the BU. But the vast majority of the fan base are simply not convinced whilst the team punches above its weight and any attempt to do anything that is seen as damaging that effort will isolate the boards detractors even more than now. So are we meant to hope for relegation so that thousands "get it"? I don't think so, particularly as I've said earlier, it feels to me that there is never, ever, going to be a sugar daddy investor, nor even a just plain filthy rich buyer. No, the project now is all about scraping along year to year and hoping that the manager and squad continues to leverage growth and limited success from meagre self generated funds. If it continues as now then I still believe that some development at Goodison can happen, whatever the outlook right now, but our path is going to remain frustratingly slow and knife edge for years to come. I wish it were different, I really do.

Bobby #863, the problem with the Park End development going ahead is that it shoots us in the foot for redevelopment of Goodison starting there as I understand it would be the easiest and cheapest stand to redevelop.

John Shaw #869, by the time the "final deadline" approached, due to cost escalation the Everton contribution had risen to around £65m. Not sure if Sir Desmond was working to that or the lower amount.

The impression I was always left with from people involved in the scheme is they weren't even close to securing the amount.

So to summarise, Everton were being asked to commit to an ever increasing (open ended?) amount which would have been paid for by the board giving up control over their own income streams which would essentially enable the money lender to make his profit regardless of on pitch matters? It doesn't sound like a great deal to me. Shame, but Everton were being 'used' in this deal as much as they ever were over Kirkby.

The clubs 'manufactured' fans populating discussion boards such as this come and go as often as BU sympathisers and belligerants given to personal insults and bullying (as anyone who was hear during the DK 'conflict' will testify) - many of whom sounded like the same person to me. If it is happening then it is happening on both sides. Convenient aren't they?

Thomas,
So, its took you nearly 10yrs to conclude that the club simply back-healed the KD because of spiraling costs? Funny how the club have never tried this gem at the ensuing AGM's..... perhaps it was because they knew that there were people present who knew the truth, chapter and verse. That's the benefit of inviting the likes of the head of the council and other relevant people to these meetings.

As regards bogus manufactured posters, again, I'm afraid this has been proven several times by moderators on these sites and by leaked club e-mails. What kind of organisation even considers such actions....... fabricating support, manipulating the media? If you remember DK so clearly, you will also know by the time the thing was going through the inquiry there was no shortage of anti-DK support on these sites. Conversely, pro-DK support had dwindled to a few faceless internet names who all posted in the same style and never accepted invitation to meetings. We now know why. If you can show that the opposite happened then fair enough...... but you're the first that's ever mentioned it to my knowledge. Feel free to go through the archives to disprove this.

Mark Wilson (967) - in response to Tom Hughes you say..

"The KD mess drove the Kirkby mess, it was desperate times and I got that wrong myself and wished I better understood the KEIOC arguments".

I'm curious - which specific bits of the (keioc) arguments did you not understand?

Also, re Elstone, you say..

"....and Robert Elstone would in my view take it head on. He's a good man and a skilled CEO but his job is too often to defend the indefensible"

I find that confusing.

First of all, what is it that you feel makes him 'a good man'? (coz..he smiles?)

Ask yourself this very simple question - does a good man (nb: take the money and) 'defend the indefensible' or does he say sorry, this is indefensible and I can't defend it?

Matt - 980

I agree, that was also my understanding at the time the proposals fell through.

The impression I got, listening to the interview, was that Sir Desmond Pitcher was asked to help as the final deadline approached, but his frustration was related more to not being asked much much earlier in the process, as he could have secured the necessary funding and prevented a lot of the delays, which could have reduced the scale of the cost escalation, and therefore our required element.

Either way, we lost out because our Board weren't on the ball, which resulted in them not being able to raise the finance, surprise surprise, not !

I have come to believe that whomsoever owns Everton FC ,I shall never see us based anywhere other than Goodison Park in my lifetime.The cost of moving is just too prohibitive to consider even by the second division Arabs,Yanks and Russians the idea of owning our club might appeal to.
Oh......I`m 51 next Tuesday!

Mark,

I'm wary of expanding more on the whole LFC/LCC/urban-decay issue because I believe it is a complete distraction to somehow dilute the failures of our board over a very long period (at least as long as LFC's involvement with the park). Yes, there will be residents for whom this is a very serious and worrying issue, but that is not the point. Comparing our squandering of KD and their extended planning permission is tenuous in the extreme. One was literally one of the most high-profile development sites in Europe, with Capital of culture deadlines to meet and developers galore desperate to get on site (Let's face it, no time was wasted in getting an alternative design and developer with all the backers in place). The other is a few terraced streets with few if any interested developers, and with mass clearances only a few yards away that were none of LFC's doing..... with neighbouring districts littered with much bigger clearance sites and urban/social decay issues.

The bottom line is that our club has been shown to have failed continually to address its infrastructure issues.......... again, over a very long period, and in an era when practically every other club's board has delivered far more. There are therefore numerous stronger and more relevant comparisons to be made. The club has never adequately demonstrated a full awareness of the possibilities at GP or anywhere else, and it's taken them this long to back-down from their long-held assertion that the retail-led option was the ONLY one, and that's despite the fact that this was flagged up within an instant of DK being announced by everyone. How many years is it since then? How many more since KD? The club has been amateurish and/or rudderless throughout. All the time it is weak excuse after weak excuse. They have never properly engaged with city-planners and stadium designers to look at the possibilities. It's felt throughout as if the powers that be will not back down for fear of loss of face. They've got so much wrong perhaps it's hardly surprising. There have been wasted opportunities and poor decision making. LCC have stated repeatedly that there are options. KEIOC even engaged architects who have confirmed the same, as did GFE before that. They have been in charge for 14yrs, and BK involved for even longer and the one recurring theme is that the club has delivered nothing.

Tom Hughes, you post good stuff always well researched and informative, well done mate.

Eric 973. Yes, completely agree.

For a club in our financial position phased redevelopment, with the increased tv cash, would prob be the way to go, gradual outlay over several seasons etc, commencing with the Park End.

It is, all things considered best for THE CLUB as far as I can see, for many reasons.

However, as I mentioned above THE BOARD have a different view. They have consistently talked down the redevelopment option, they will not entertain it. Elstone has been talking it down again at the fans forum, referencing LFC and his doubts about their scheme.

Therefore my comments re a Park End development as we assess move options were made based on this being the clubs thinking. That we can maybe seek to increase revenue with a Park End scheme as we ultimately look to move, as moving is the only thing on the boards agenda. Lets just say there are differing opinions as to why the board so staunchly hold this view!!!

I personally believe phased redevelopment is probably the best & smartest move for the club, especially with the council being fully on board with the football quarter ethos and LFC embracing the concept in their plans. EFC have an opportunity with a supportive council to follow suit but that just isn't going to happen as the board are fixated on moving.

Quite how the board plan to fund that will be very interesting given previous funding, ahem, issues.

And until the club can resolve this thorny issue, and its very problematic as its the ONLY route they will consider, we are where we are.

The club, its facilities, finances and ultimately its ability to compete on the pitch tread water as all around progress and we lean more and more on Moyes ability to beat the odds.

Eugene (#010) — fair comment. I should perhaps just clarify the points you raise.

In relation to KEOIC stuff, the bit I think I didn't really get about the No campaign was the transport infrastructure. I had thought the argument that it was all wrong rather flawed, as I just couldn't see the move in distance terms as an issue. I, like many I think, always saw Kirkby as Liverpool... well, so close as not to matter, and without opening that one up again, I didn't look at the transport stuff close enough but KEOIC put together some persuasive argument about the issue, linked to lack of parking and congestion etc and I did come to better understand that this failing was more significant and of itself a possible deal breaker. There's a lot more that was said and still could be said about DK, but really, there's no point.

Ref Robert Elstone. I worked with him on a number of things at Everton, nothing that high profile and our contact was hardly day to day, but I came to know him a little and yes, I think he's a "good man". It was a sort of loose descriptor, I accept, but nothing to do with comments about his "smile". No, my use of that phrase was based on his management, at least that I saw, and some discussions which I felt were honest, pragmatic and displayed a good grasp of the reality that is EFC.

My business background tells me that at times it's not always possible that every policy, every strategy, every utterance, of your organisation is in line with your own personal views. I find it strange that "taking one for the team" so to speak isn't something that most would understand?

The really tough stuff, the "indefensible" stuff was I guess again a bit of loose language on my part, but I thought most would get the point. Exactly what is defined as "indefensible" is the critical bit. You it seems may find some things qualify under that banner whilst I might not.

The CEO has a position. Normally it's the Board's position, the organisation's position, and I don't get why you would be surprised at the CEO adopting, promoting and yes defending that position? It's basically, well, his job, isn't it?

How long would any CEO stay in his job at a football club if every week he got up and said "Eugene's right, the Chairman is crap and we are all liars"? I'm not making the moral judgement particularly but Eugene I'm just being practical, he has a job to do and it could be that you and the BU etc dislike him as a result but it doesn't change my view... he's a good man and that's not about his smile.

Mark "How long would any CEO stay in his job at a football club if every week he got up and said "Eugenes right the Chairman is crap and we are all liars".

2 weeks wasn't it in the case of Trevor Birch? Only he saw what a mess the board are and said I'm not going to defend the indefensible.

Mark Wilson (122) you say..

"The CEO has a position. Normally it's the Boards position, the organisation's position, and I don't get why you would be surprised at the CEO adopting, promoting and yes defending that position? It's basically, well, his job, isn't it?"

I am not 'surprised' and NOWHERE did I say I was surprised.

What I said, in response to your claim that Elstone is 'a good man' is:

"Ask yourself this very simple question – does a good man (nb: take the money and) 'defend the indefensible' or does he say "Sorry, this is indefensible and I can't defend it?"

Your response (justification) is that he's 'taking one for the team'.

He isn't – he's taking a large wage and a load of perks for... Robert Elstone.

(Let's not bullshit each other.)

Remember we're (all of us) judged by what we DO rather than what we say... and, despite what he might say (and his winning smile), personally I've seen him DO fuck all other than whatever he needs to do to keep himself in business.

As for you not understanding the transport issues over DK? — Really!?

Even after it was revealed 1000 would have to travel on bicycles?

Or that the last supporters in the queue at Kirkby station, would be getting on the train 1 hr 45 mins after the game?

Or that there was only a thousand parking spaces being provided?

Bobby #023, I can just see in the future the board using the excuse that GP can't be redeveloped because of the new Park End development!

Eugene #183, my, you do make me seem very stupid, don't you? How could I miss that stuff about bicycles, crumbs, it was right up there on Day 1 wasn't it. Look, all I said was that I didn't see the transport argument as clearly as I maybe should have done. Lots of us got things wrong about DK, not everything, but parts of the infrastructure debate didn't really surface initially, as most of the fuss centred on the "leaving of Liverpool". Still, at least half of all season ticket holders at the time made a similar stupid mistake and only the most fervent cyclists got stuck in immediately...

As for my views on the CEO? What's the point Eugene, really, what is the point? I think he's doing a reasonable job and I don't think you're being realistic about his "position" or how he handles it. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree and both pray for a stunningly good result on Sunday.

Mark (296) you say..

"As for my views on the CEO ? What's the point Eugene, really, what is the point ? I think he's doing a reasonable job and I don't think your being realistic about his "position" or how he handles it".

Well the point on a forum is (usually) debate.

Argument and counter-argument, see where it gets you.

We choose to be involved or...not to.

You chose to - right?

Ok

Let's be clear.

In response to YOUR statements that Elstone is 'a good man' and 'hIs job is often to defend the indefensible', I responded (twice) with what was/is a perfectly legitimate, logical question - "does a good man 'defend the indefensible' or does he say "Sorry, this is indefensible and I can't defend it?'

You responded to this with "Yes but what I meant was..."

Apologies, I countered what you ACTUALLY wrote - next time I'll read your post, then figure out what you REALLY meant.

Re DK, you add..

"Eugene #183, my, you do make me seem very stupid don't you, how could I miss that stuff about bicycles, crumbs, it was right up there on day 1 wasn't it. Look, all I said was that I didn't see the transport argument as clearly as I maybe should have done. Lots of us got things wrong about DK, not everything, but parts of the infrastructure debate didn't really surface initially, as most of the fuss centred on the "leaving of Liverpool"

Well ok, we could debate this further, but let's not - let's say that this paragraph is 'fair enough' and makes sense regarding how a lot supporters perceived a complicated and not-obvious-from-the-start situation re transport.

It does however bring me back to your reading of Elstone

My concern is a post from you a couple of years from now, along the lines..

"Ok we all know NOW that Elstone was up to no good and defending the indefensible, but..."

And by the way I don't make you look stupid, we (all of us) stand or fall by our own words.