For the same reason they wont have a rights issue Andy.

It would dilute their holdings and they are still holding out for a Retail Park bonus and a big payday on selling the club.

In the meantime I guess they are happy taking their interest payments in the Cayman Isles while the club descends further into debt.

A little correction Andy (though it certainly doesn't detract from your point, it only enhances it).

Robert Earl was not involved when Bill, Jon Woods and Paul Gregg bought out Peter Johnson in 1999 (through a specailly created, Jersey based company called True Blue Holdings). They eventually dissolved TBH and distributed the Everton shares it held amongst themselves only after Kenwright and Woods fell out with Gregg over the Kings Dock fiasco, and Gregg sold his shares to BCR Sports in the British Virgin Islands (i.e. Robert Earl) in 2006. At the time it was reported that Gregg's 23% cost BCR just over £7m, once more valuing the entire club at just over £30m.

In other words, we have a former director and current director who apparently agree the company failed to increase in value at all over the 7 years between 1999 and 2006. If that current director agrees with the current £150m price tag, the entire 450% increase has come in the last 7 years.

I note you've owned a share for 6 of those 7 years. One might reasonably ask what the Directors and Executives of Everton Football Club Company Ltd have done over those 6/7 years which has resulted in such a remarkable (apparent) increase in the value of your investment? Clearly we need to know this so we can properly thank them for the wise decisions they've obviously made on our behalf.

Jay, the board buying up small shareholders share would not dilute the board's holdings, it would increase it because they would own more shares.

Didn’t Bill buy 290 more shares recently off Willie Russell, his mate from Blood Brothers?

Decent profit in that little deal alone I imagine if the club gets sold.

I think the reason the AGMs stopped is that Bill doesn't like criticism of his shambolic running of our great club. It seems strange doesn't it that he hasn't sold considering clubs like Malaga have recieved massive investment, considering we are a more historic and successful club. Who wouldn't want to buy us?

James Asquith,

Good post there,what is the general mood of your fellow shareholders re the current state of the club?
Am I right in saying you are the present chairman of the shareholders association?

It's like the final days of every dictatorship in living memory, Hitler, Hussain, Gadaffi, bunker mentality which Prentice alludes to.

I think a q and a session with prentice on toffeewb is a great idea. No abuse MK could filter it.

I'm a member of the Shareholders Association which recently (before Christmas) held a vote to re-instate AGMs by calling for an EGM. I was trying to find out where this was up to and whether, if a sufficient number were in favour, whether the small shareholders could actually force the club to hold an EGM but couldn't really get an answer. I thought this would have been raised at the recent meeting with Robert Elstone but I couldn't see any reference to it in the recently published minutes of that meeting. Perhaps he just refused to discuss it? We also appear to be waiting for the result of this vote to be announced. If an overwhelming number of small shareholders were in favour would the Echo still refuse to give genuine concerns of those fans and shareholders demonstrated by such a vote any publicity? Can James shed any light on this issue?

Andy thought about a full page advert in the echo? Now that would be interesting.

Alan, excellent OP, thanks. I have also treated myself to ownership of one share. Which I transferred in to my partners name pre season as I also have a season ticket and wanted to get two Wembley tickets. I told anyone and everyone how clever I was before the Wigan game, what with securing two tickets.

Anyway back on thread, James, excellent addition and I know that you are close to these issues.

Eric, I note that you are always close to the financial issues on here and I always read, with respect your contributions. A bit like the way I enjoy Kens contributions from his seat.

Jay, can I ask specifically what you mean in your last paragraph and what evidence you have.

This subject is a perennial one on here, and one that not many seem to get to the facts about, Ross, we have done this to death. The AGMs were sacked off because of the raucous behaviour of what I am told were predominantly proxy representatives, and this is my only observation which differs from Andy, I was also at the last few and thought the behaviour of some was poor. If I had been subject to such what amounted to abuse, I would find a way of getting round it.

Peter, you are better than that and you know it

Is not possible to hold a meeting without proxy voters and ensure that only the named shareholder(s) are present?

Patrick, that is exactly the preferred solution of the Board.

Eric,
I was talking about a rights issue that would help get funds into the club which is something the current major shareholders will not entertain as it would dilute their holding.

Ian I was referring to the extremely high interest payments the club are paying to a Cayman Islands company which is also coincidentally where Earle has his businesses registered.

Many supporters have questioned the connection but there is no hard evidence.

Jay, not in any way having a pop at you. Don't see where you get the idea about the high interest rates from. Interest rates implies loans or borrowing, but I can not see either . Are you implying a shareholder/director has leant the Company money and is charging a high rate?

My understanding is that there are situations where incoming Directors have bought shares in a company using a loan facility normally but not exclusively from a bank, and then once they have control, got the Company to either make the loan repayments them selves or pay them through a 3rd party. Surely this is not us. Meaning that the income from the company is used to effectively buy the shares for the Director. It means the outgoings of the Company go up substantially, I am not an accountant, but could these costs be lumped/grouped together as Operating expenses?

I do not know, it is beyond my station, but of all the things to do with Everton,this is the one of most interest. (No pun) to me.

Ian thanks for your response, I wasn't aware that this was the Club's position on this matter, maybe the shareholders should consider this option to at least get a meaningful dialogue between the 2 parties. The club cannot continue this wall of silence or 'siege mentality' as it must have a detrimental effect, not only on the team but outside interests such as Bankers etc who it would appear the club rely on to meet the day to day demands of the club.

Patrick, cheers for the comment. I a sure that the Bankers will be more than aware of what is going on well before a shareholder meeting. I believe that they will speak daily about what is what. I doubt the players are either interested or understand the issues. As you say, a good dialogue can only really help, unless those in control don't care what the rest of the shareholders say. That is, of course, if they are not puppets but that is another issue that no one on here seems to be able to factually resolve. Factually.

Ian

Ian #587 "The AGMs were sacked off because of the raucous behaviour of what I am told were predominantly proxy representatives"

The raucous proxy you are referring to was the leader of the city council who challenged the board to back up what they were saying about the council.

See this thread http://toffeeweb.com/season/12-13/comment/fan/24034.html especially post #727 which has a link to a report of the meeting

The reason the AGMs were stopped was because the board were caught out in a lie and didn't want to repeat their humiliation.

Patrick #590, what the Club so conveniently forget to mention when they complain about proxy voters is that Kenwright holds the proxies of his fellow board member Earle who does not attend the meetings.

So if they were to ban proxies there would be no support for the Club.

Jay #631, a rights issue will not dilute the holdings of the board if they were to buy some of the shares to maintain their majority.

Andy I have thought about buying a share or shares in the club. Don't get excited I'm not a super rich. Can you give me some advice on where to look? £3k per share is a bit steep though...

On the change in value of the club. Could it not be linked to the increase in our potential earnings?

In 99-01 Premier league sold the TV rights for about 850mil. The new deal is for 5-6 Billion. Assuming our portion of that has gone up pro-rata, and given this is our main income stream, the potential earnings of the club have massively increased leading to an inflated asking price.

Eric #665, I know, I was there and you no doubt will know also, we are not talking about a leading local political representative, putting forward a reasonable denate. We are talking about a fair few who did try to get their own agendas heard one way or another. The last one was more like a pub arguament than a serious meeting. Anyway it has gone, sadly, and will not be back for a bit at least.

Eric #667, quite, I posted here a bit ago on the maths. I can not remember the numbers but I recon that a rights issue not taken up by any Director, allowing for fees and underwriting would raise around £15 million max.

Lastly Eric # 666, superb point, but I believe the issue is not the votes of proxies, simply the attendance at meetings of proxies.

Got to go now, got to get off down to Goodison park woooooooo.

Michael #701, the inflated asking price is to pay off the money owed to creditors.

Eric, why would current creditors be included in the asking price? Wouldn't the new owners just buy the current owners shares and take responsibility for the debt?

Jay #631, the time for rights issues is long gone. Let's forget the fact that the board won't do it because it would dilute their shareholders, or of course, would need to be underwritten by them (costs money).

How much could such a rights issue raise? £15m is a popular figure bandied around over the last few years. Gets you fuck all. A Fellaini (without wages or agents fees), or covers less than 2/3 of "Other Operating Costs" for 1 year. Finances in the Premier League have moved on - another reason why we're stuck with the board.

Michael #744, if the cost of paying off what's owed is not included in the price then it really is a ridiculous price to be asking and expecting the buyer to pay the creditors.

Matt #748, £15m would buy us a Finch Farm. If the rights issue was 1 to 1 and the shares sold at current price then it would raise £44 million.

If I remember correctly, when Everton played villareal for a CL place reuters (apologies if Iv spelt it wrong) valued Everton at £125m back then