All We Are Saying...

, 13 April, 40comments  |  Jump to most recent
The Blue Union reveal that talks have taken place with the Liverpool Echo which, they hope, will see the local press dig a little deeper into the behind-the-scenes affairs at Goodison Park.
The questions we want the Echo to ask questions won't remove them from their difficult position [with the Club] ... and we've at least received a reasonable commitment from the Echo, they're not about to launch themselves into a crusade, but at least the real questions that need answering will begin to be asked and investigated.

Questions surrounding the source of the monies used to buy shares from previous owners, the individual roles of the current directors on the board and who evaluates their performances, why Everton alone in the Premier League has received no investment, why not one of the directors has ever invested a single penny into Everton, who are the offshore company we're borrowing tens of millions of pounds from, who's behind them and what is the source of that money, why has the Kit supply deal been left to Kitbag when every other club is earning millions from their kit supply deal whilst we earn nothing and finally how have the board calculated that Everton are valued at £125m, what have the board done to enhance the £21m valuation in 2000 and how has Inner Circle Sports performed since they were engaged to look for potential owners in March last year?

Then, in the January, came hope; the manager was given some funds from the player sales, four weeks later it was revealed that Inner Circle Sports, a company promoted by the Blue Union as a potential broker with a better record than Keith Harris was approached to find a buyer for the club. The season improved, the summer saw some further support for the manager from the board but despite a good start to the season the signs were ominous as a leopard doesn't change its spots and by January the good work had been undone.

During this time the behind the scenes outrageous behaviour of the club towards anyone uttering the slightest criticism has continued unabated, bans from the club, from events and threats to journalists continued as before, if anything it became worse; so the time for being patient and keeping quiet whilst the pantomime is played out has clearly past.

» Read the full article at The Blue Union



Reader Comments (40)

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


John Keating
1 Posted 13/04/2013 at 06:35:28
An excellent article and worth a read. I just do not believe that, whilst we have people like O'Keeffe and Prentice reporting all things Everton, the questions we would like asked will be. I also think that the Echo shouldn't be between "a rock and a hard place".

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.

Richard Dodd
2 Posted 13/04/2013 at 11:33:17
I don`t get the general impression that every club other than Everton is so open with their fans that all their questions are answered at the drop of a hat. Most of them are private limited companies and the fans are their customers. We may all claim to have some moral right to know about all the innermost workings but, in reality, we are just that... customers.

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.

Gavin Ramejkis
3 Posted 13/04/2013 at 11:55:35
Doddy but there's a world of difference between keeping things behind closed doors and the outright theatrical bullshit Bill has come out with over his reign. Any of those jackanorys would have been plastered all over the press if it wasn't for the Trinity Papers close relationship.

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.

John Keating
4 Posted 13/04/2013 at 12:25:17
Richard

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!

Brian Denton
5 Posted 13/04/2013 at 13:14:17
Doddy, at what threshold number of shares is a shareholder entitled to know? With my paltry one presumably I have no right at all - but what about the person with ten? Twenty? A hundred? All no right to know anything unless on the Board?
Richard Dodd
6 Posted 13/04/2013 at 13:26:19
Good point about shareholders who seem to have been disenfranchised at a stroke. Surely the Shareholders Association should be banging on the Chairman`s door rather than leaving it to self-elected groups who have no legal rights to influence the Board in their conduct of the Club?

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`.

Eugene Ruane
7 Posted 13/04/2013 at 14:42:11
Richard Dodd (377) - "We may all claim to have some moral right to know about all the innermost workings but, in reality we are just that....customers".

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.

Christine Foster
8 Posted 13/04/2013 at 14:47:53
Richard, the use of proxy votes and representatives is common practice around the world, one has to imagine that those arguing against the club do so with the blessing of those who give them their proxy because they may well articulate the response better.

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?

Thomas Lennon
9 Posted 13/04/2013 at 15:36:32
Every shareholder has the right to ask the board a question and to get an answer. If they don't like the answer they can go away and try to raise a majority to vote the board down or raise money to attempt a takeover - however if they cannot do that it ends there other than lobbying.

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

John Keating
10 Posted 13/04/2013 at 17:00:03
Richard,

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

What should make EFC different???

Richard Dodd
11 Posted 13/04/2013 at 17:13:05
I can only imagine the Club acted within the legal framework by ceasing to hold AGMs. Not very democratic, I agree, but if these had become no more than a bearpit, I can understand why they were suspended. I thought that the Shareholders Association were working to get them re-instated but obviously they have not come up with an acceptable recipe to do so.

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.

Gavin Ramejkis
12 Posted 13/04/2013 at 20:33:16
Doddy the shareholders association have asked the question regarding AGMs and been blanked, the club had the temerity to deny a shareholder access to a meeting citing him showing other shareholders information, something they have no right to do as he has no involvement in the club and is equally not beholden or forced to report his personal actions to them. The rabble rousing excuses were feeble ones given the perfectly legitimate concerns surrounding DK which subsequently came to light at the hearings, an apology was never offered post those hearings or explanation as to the true cessation which was the boards inability or rather unwillingness to respond to perfectly valid questions.

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

Peter Laing
14 Posted 13/04/2013 at 21:10:32
If Kenwright truly has the best interests of Everton at heart then surely he has nothing to be afraid of and should welcome the transparency to clear up any uncertainty regarding the pertinent questions that the Blue Union have raised with the Echo.
Eric Owen
15 Posted 13/04/2013 at 22:47:34
I'm rather confused by the statement of Richard Dodd who says, "I can only imagine the Club acted within the legal framework by ceasing to hold AGMs. Not very democratic, I agree, but if these had become no more than a bear pit, I can understand why they were suspended. I thought that the Shareholders Association were working to get them re-instated but obviously they have not come up with an acceptable recipe to do so."
As a Fellow of the British Institute of Chartered Secretaries the law concerning AGMs and a shareholder's legal status seem explicit to me as I read it in the following web sites: http://www.out-law.com/page-8201

https://www.icsaglobal.com/


Am I missing something?

Eric Owen FCIS; CGA.

Eric Myles
17 Posted 14/04/2013 at 03:00:22
Richard #429 "but if these had become no more than a bearpit, I can understand why they were suspended" and "Clearly, the Board have lost all respect for the small shareholders (due to the behaviour of a minority) "

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???

Richard Dodd
18 Posted 14/04/2013 at 10:40:55
I do agree that the Everton Board should have been capable of managing the situation rather than showing their complete disdain for the minority shareholders by abandoning AGMs. But then, they and their advisors have not proved adept at handling the company's governance and constitutional responsibilities although I suspect they are even aware of them! It's football, isn't it?

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.

Richard Dodd
19 Posted 14/04/2013 at 10:59:43
I did mean to enquire if the Echo or one of its subsidiaries still have the contract to produce the Club's programme? I have always felt that was an unhealthy relationship, harnessing its writers not to rock the boat for fear of retribution.
Paul Andrews
20 Posted 14/04/2013 at 18:10:49
Some very important questions asked by the Blue Union.

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

Richard Dodd
21 Posted 14/04/2013 at 19:48:44
I guess the Board would tell Blue Union – or anyone else who asked – to mind their own business. Whether we like it or not, they have been elected by the shareholders to direct and manage the company and don`t have to answer to us as their customers. We may not like it but that`s how business works.

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

Michael Kenrick
22 Posted 14/04/2013 at 19:59:31
Richard,

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.

Kevin Tully
23 Posted 14/04/2013 at 20:42:12
It is completely legal for a high interest loan to be taken out in the BVI.

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.

Richard Dodd
24 Posted 14/04/2013 at 20:49:05
Totally agree, Michael. But unless there is evidence of wrong-doing, there`s nothing to be done about it.
Patrick Murphy
25 Posted 14/04/2013 at 20:56:04
Much of what the Banking Industry did in the late 90s to late 2000s was totally legal and look what that has done to ordinary working people. The Everton Board and their dealings with various parties may well be legal but are these dealings in the best interest of the football club?

Kevin Tully
26 Posted 14/04/2013 at 20:59:09
This is very interesting:

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!

Patrick Murphy
27 Posted 14/04/2013 at 21:03:41
Kevin it just gets worse and worse doesn't it, how can we keep playing this "robbing Peter to pay Paul" game for? Our luck will run out eventually and all the chickens will come home to roost.
Kevin Tully
28 Posted 14/04/2013 at 21:09:20
Patrick, I always think if you are trying to hide information like this, and other operating costs, there is money being taken out of the club. All legal, but as you say, it certainly won't be in the best interest of the club.

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.

Richard Dodd
29 Posted 14/04/2013 at 21:31:21
Like many others, I believe the Board gives little cognisance to their responsibilities to all shareholders as far as governance and management practices are concerned. However, I am sure the company`s auditors are satisfied that the accounts and the form in which they are presented `are a true and accurate record` of the business. Otherwise they would surely `qualify` them.

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

Winston Williamson
30 Posted 14/04/2013 at 22:09:24
In terms of Kenwright saying "I have taken out a second mortgage"...

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

Patrick Murphy
31 Posted 14/04/2013 at 22:20:23
To paraphrase an old anti-communist saying: - He is the most generous of Charimen he has nothing and he is always willing to share it with the rest of us.

Kevin Tully
32 Posted 14/04/2013 at 22:26:53
The Echo need to concentrate on BK's latest interview, where he said there was a potential buyer who had been in touch that very week!

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.

Eric Myles
33 Posted 15/04/2013 at 08:51:12
Richard "As long as they comply with the law – and I guess the auditors will ensure they do – they are in safe territory. "

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

Eric Myles
34 Posted 15/04/2013 at 09:14:26
If MKs figures of 30% of small shareholders is correct then that makes them the biggest single voting block of all the shareholders.
Thomas Lennon
35 Posted 15/04/2013 at 09:24:26
Regarding AGM I think this quote is relevant:

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

Richard Dodd
36 Posted 15/04/2013 at 09:55:30
Do we know if such `a circulationof a resolution` has occurred? Or are the Board acting outside their powers in deciding to abandon AGMs?
Ian Smitham
37 Posted 15/04/2013 at 10:14:04
I am reading through this thread with interest (no pun intended)

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

Tom Hughes
38 Posted 15/04/2013 at 17:15:40
Ian,
I don't recognise your description of the AGM. If you were there you would've seen Warren Bradley (the then leader of the council) ask a question in direct response to Sir Philip Carters statement. it was one of a series of questions that exposed the lies and ineptitude of the whole DK period. They attempted to fob us off as at several previous AGMs regarding KD and other major issues. This time they couldn't and they all visibly wilted...... they were seriously found out. They have run out of excuses and have no answers. That is why we haven't had any AGMs. The unansweed questions and failures have piled up.
Jeremy Benson
39 Posted 15/04/2013 at 18:07:44
There is no obligation for private companies to have AGM's. Think this came in the companies act 2006.
Richard Dodd
40 Posted 15/04/2013 at 18:36:11
I don`t think the Glasers at Man Utd or Lerner at Villa hold AGMs although as they own all the shares they could have them over breakfast.

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

Tom Hughes
41 Posted 15/04/2013 at 18:38:12
Jeremy,
That is correct, but we can argue that there is a moral obligation to continue the tradition of over 120yrs. Its no surprise that the ceasation of this tradition by the so called peoples club coincides with the damaging and outstanding issues that led to and from the DK debacle. Other clubs still hold AGMs.... perhaps we have more to hide. All that said.... the moral obligation may still be upheld yet.... if the shareholders association get their way!
Ian Smitham
42 Posted 15/04/2013 at 19:43:38
Tom, I guess we were both at the same meeting, perhaps with differing interpretations, to be honest, not living in the area, I would not have recognised Mr Bradley. That they were found out maybe the case and I would not argue with that. I was then a interested observer, just I have got a whole lot more interested hence my comment on here and the other re Goodison.

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.


Add Your Comments

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

» Log in now

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


About these ads

© ToffeeWeb