All We Are Saying...

I believe the Echo should ask questions and, if they are banned or whatever, think of the outrage that would cause throughout the rest of the media. Now that would really put a stick up Kenwright's arse!

I believe then more and more people will scrutinise the Club's affairs and, rather than alienate the Club, it will force the Club to react.

I reckon my missus spends more at M&S each year than I do on Everton but I don't think she'd get much joy if she started bombarding them with questions about their purchasing policy and who was the beneficial owner of their shares.

Contrary to what the writer of this article implies, access to the internet gives me no more power than to be a boring nuisance who merely regurgitates the sort of gossip we used to exchange in the pub. The problem, really,is that football fans have always felt they could run their club better than whoever was in power at the time. The reality is that those that have tried have generally made a bigger pigss ear of the job than those they replaced!

This lot insist they have no ambitions in that direction and only want a say in who should buy the Club and at what price. I wish them and the Echo well in that ambition! Meanwhile I`ll get on with enjoying the football.

I'd also bet there aren't many if any clubs in the entire league that haven't seen a penny invested in them beyond what they gain from player sales, ticket sales and broadcast rights.

If M&S were losing millions each year do you think the Shareholders would be happy? And do you think the Shareholders would mention this at an AGM?

Well not only can the ordinary punters get no answers but neither can the Shareholders of our great Club. Maybe we have no right to ask any questions but when all these arseholes running the Club are spouting off about our great support and it's all about the Peoples Club and without our great support we'd be nowt - get behind the team you're our twelfth man!!! (etc etc etc).

Can we ask nothing ??

Prentice and O'Keeffe will be there today, treble gins all around!! The only thing they'll ask Kenwright is if they can get more freebies!

The Board`s explanation seems to be that AGMs were discontinued because they had been hijacked `by a rabble` misusing proxy entry and votes. If that was the case, it seems to have been a misguided tactic by those who now claim to be the `good guys`.

Surely it is more legitimate to say 'We have some moral right to know about all the innermost workings, we are customers'.

To suggest, as your wording does, that customers have no real say in the success or failure of a business is nonsense.

Take away the customers and the business (any business) simply no longer exists.

Either way, the board had no moral right to deny the shareholders or their representatives the opportunity to ask questions of a board who have themselves used third parties to press home their views (and the media)

They have elected to hide behind a law designed to streamline red tape for small businesses, not an EPL club, I wonder if any other clubs took the same approach?

There is no right to harangue individuals in public, attempt to denigrate them personally or shout everyone else down at an AGM.

I have shares in a number of companies and get regular crap regarding proxies.

What should make EFC different???

Clearly, the Board have lost all respect for the small shareholders (due to the behaviour of a minority) and I can see little prospect of harmony returning so long as they are in power. I am not, in principle, opposed to Blue Union but their tactics have not exactly appeared well judged or proved very effective to date.

Again if this was to happen at any of the media darling Sky clubs the reports would be plastered over the newspapers.

https://www.icsaglobal.com/

Am I missing something?

Eric Owen FCIS; CGA.

The AGMs were suspended due to the temerity of one of the proxy attendees to ask the board to provide proof that they had been in negotiations with the City Council over land for a new ground. That proxy was the leader of the City Council who would surely have known about such negotiations.

In other words the board were caught out in a lie and didn't want to face that same embarrassment again so took steps to prevent it, and not by not lying in the future but by preventing the means to get caught.

In all their crying about proxy voters the board also fail to point out that THEY hold the proxies of fellow member Earl who doesn't attend and whose proxy enable them to have a majority vote.

The Echo will do nothing, if they were interested they would be asking BK about his second mortgage to keep the Club afloat bullshit he has just spewed. Just how much is his house worth???

I understand that Arsenal have had similar problems with their AGMs but handled them with great dignity. Perhaps dignity is a word which both sides in this dispute would do well to take note of.

Some of the points they raise about the board need answering, one point re the loan from the BVI is very shady.

As long as they comply with the law – and I guess the auditors will ensure they do – they are in safe territory.

As I understand it, the Board has a fiscal duty to ALL the shareholders — that includes the 30% you seem to be ignoring who have become disenfranchised through the eradication of AGMs and the emasculation of the [Small] Shareholders Association. The purpose of AGMs was to provide an opportunity for exactly that.

As for 'complying with the law', there has to be some serious collusion going on with the auditors for them to be able to hide such a huge portion of the club's finances under the umbrella of "Other Operating Costs".

Yes, they may all be doing it... but that doesn't make it right.

Who owns the company there, and where that interest is going (we are talking millions) is another matter altogether.

The club may be able to secure these loans elsewhere, at far more competitive interest rates – but we will never know.

Let's assume Earl does own the company in the BVI – not too much of a stretch of the imagination.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2011/sep/19/everton-broadcast-income-mortgage

Seems the club tried to ban this article, looks like they were not successful!

People say BK is a bit daft... that is exactly what he wants people to believe, but it is very far removed from the truth.

I don`t think it's wise to be party to allegations of malfeasance as long as they choose not to do so.

He implies this mortgage is against his own house??? However, as fellow Financial advisers (and most home-owners) will know, you do not generally take out 2nd mortgages against your properties. You either remortgage with another lender and increase your borrowing at the same time. Or you obtain a Further Advance on top of your existing borrowing.

You can take a 2nd mortgage, but the situation in which this generally arises is when your existing lender will not lend any more money. 2nd Charges against residential properties are rare these days.

However, reading the Guardian article Kevin kindly posted (which clearly states Everton tried to stop being published) implies the second mortgage Kenwright speaks of is not against his residential home... but EFC's future TV revenue...

From a financial planning point of view... he's a tosser

Call the liar out, and maybe people will start to finally see through him. Ask him who this mystery party was, and why they have walked away. The stories are right under their noses, and they won't even ask this simple question.

Much like Enron's auditors ensured Enron complied with the law?

Q. What are the new provisions regarding AGM's (Annual General Meetings)

A. Under the Companies Act 2006 private companies will no longer be required to hold annual general meetings, however the shareholders will still be involved in the decision making process of the company.

The Act was drafted so many of these decisions can be made by written resolution although the company will still need to hold meetings to dismiss a director or remove an auditor before the end of the term of office. The shareholders and directors also still have the power to call a meeting, if required.

The affect of the new provisions is dependent on what is currently in a company's articles. An existing private company would still need to pass a resolution to remove any existing clauses regarding annual general meetings from its articles. Notice of this resolution would be circulated to the members before it could be passed or agreed to.

Further detailed information on resolutions and meetings is contained within Companies Act 2006: Private Company Information, on the BIS website: http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file42261.pdf

Eric #521, I believe that your link relates to Public companies and Thomas #846 has beaten me to it in supplying a response. I have read/heard/made up that the Companies Articles were amended to accommodate the changes in Company law allowing the ceasing of Annual Meetings.

Brian #384, I am beneficial owner of 1 share also, but for reasons I shared (no pun again) with you all, it is held in my Partners name. Your point is very interesting, and I also wonder at what point does a Shareholder become entitled to more information regarding the fine detail of the Companies Income and expenditure?

Regarding the vexed issue of the meetings, I was there at the last two, and whilst there may well have been valuable input, by and large the meetings descended into an almost ale house type arguament at times and I would not like anyone to get the impression they were orderly and the comments made by some attending we're close on abuse. I do not know or even need to know who the bodies were, but the reference to a Council leader may or may not be right, and one thing that is sure is that there were a fair few acting in a rowdy manner. I know that there has been discussion around reintroducing meetings, and know that the discussion has been around excluding proxies as the perception is that they were the root of the less than business like approaches. At risk of being shot down, I do not know. Christine, whilst I agree with your sentiments about proxies, I am sure that I saw adverts/articles offering people the chance to be proxies and they were in no way the type I would associate with a proxy, I.e someone who can not attend but wants a vote on an issue casting on their behalf by another. Yes, I know, like Bill does. The votes BTW at the GM's I attended are a joke as even in a show of hand if there was any doubts, Bill pulls out an envelope and declares he has so many thousands he is proxy for.

John #380, I think the issue here is that some of these types of meetings are now managed to ensure that they do not descend into farce. Though shareholders of any Company have a right to ask questions, it is the norm now that the questions have to be posed in writing in advance of the shareholders meetings.

Surely, if the club can not get/extend credit, from the usual source, Barclays, Investec they must get lines of credit elsewhere, maybe at higher rates, but to surmise that they are obtained via a Company that is owned at least in part by an Everton Director who may well know that Everton could obtain better terms from elsewhere that his BVI Company sounds like conflict of interest to me.

Kevin #769, all of these are important points, but to my contribution on this point but surly to God these were the subject of an earlier posting on the subject of "Who owns Goodison Park?" Which Colin Wainwright himself, in my opinion, correctly identified as the most important question at the Company.

MK may I say again that I think that some sort of permanent link be established on this subject until it is resolved with some clarity and further, that Ownership related discussion be limited to that thread simply so that everyone can see what everyone has put on that subject alone which hopefully keeps us all focused and avoids duplication. Just a thought and assuming this gets onto the site,thanks for letting me have my two penny worth. Ian

If such a share structure was imposed at Everton,would we find it acceptable or would we all be donning salmon pink scarves?

I note your later posting, under the circumstances the Board may have felt under, if I were them I would do what they did and take advantage of law not some moral obligation some may feel that they have. At risk of appearing inconsistent or contradictory, I do believe that they have a moral responsibility and also that more transparency should be afforded.

I believe that the "People's Club" stuff had to be dropped, and I finish with my affirming my full support of those seeking whatever is at the end of the rainbow, and hopefully a strong Shareholder Association has a part in that journey too.