General Meeting scheduled for 26 June

We'd set the rules first (loosely based on ITVs wrestling)

No biting, no pulling hair, no punches, no arm-bending, no...

The result would be a bit of flapping about and..erm..that would be it.

This meeting I'm guessing won't be dissimilar.

No BU, no Dave Kelly, no bringing up stuff we can't answer, no speaking above a whisper..

All designed as an exercise to say 'See, we hide nothing', while remaining as transparent as oak.

Regarding my own participation at the meeting I can confirm that I will well and truly be in attendance, albeit in my capacity as a democratically elected member of the Shareholders Associations Executive Committe.

I take my responsibilities on the Executive Committee seriously and do not allow my involvement in the Blue Union or my Trade Union to influence any of my decisions.

Do not be fooled by the way the senior management team have tried to marginalize me by its childish and immature posturing. Maybe just maybe now agent Tyrrell has returned to his position on the Kop we can get down to the real business that real Evertonians care passionately about.

With regards to the Business on the 26th, most if not all EGMs and AGMs are mind numbing and boring. The only business that can, and will be dealt with will be has already described within the requisition.

Up the Toffees

Ah, but we've had this before.... Open and close the formal business as quickly as possible with the carrot of something else 'not officially part of the meeting' after formal business has been finished and the minutes no longer being recorded. I remember them doing that to wheel in Moyes for a Q&A some years ago, people where still asking Bill questions, but the minutes were long since closed. What's the betting that our new manager is there, the chair says "I'm time tabling 30 minutes for the formal business, then we can have an hour Q&A with the new manager who has kindly agreed to attend'. To be honest that's what I'd do in their shoes! Bet the board are looking forward to the evening like wisdom teeth extraction.

For what it's worth though I suspect they will let the last item come good for us and they will reinstate the AGM - and for that - well done to everyone who put the effort in to making this happen.

Will there be minutes made available of this EGM do you know? Thanks.

Since Destination Kirkby, my disdain for the management and board of our club has been well documented on this forum; single-handedly their actions, and lack of them, have necessitated the sale of the club's assets, the bended knee to the banks and the total disregard to any concern any fans have, they have never been man enough to face probing or even the most basic of questions.

They liberally call out fans for the abusive behavior shown to the Chairman, yet is it not an abuse of power to condemn others whilst abusing their own status as custodians of the club? Or is it not an abuse of power to deny shareholders and fans alike, access to question?

Many will say, it's a business and they can do what they like because the own it, but EFC is a football club first and a limited company second. Without the first, there is no second. As a football club, the tribalism of its supports extend beyond the normal boundaries of business. Where else in the world would you get 40,000 fans screaming their support for a business?

That the club chose to ignore that fact and operate the business in isolation to reality is testament to their arrogance and led many, including myself, to question what the intentions of the board have been and still are.

That we have no new owners after so many years searching 24/7 beggers belief; that we have no money in the kitty is a direct result of decisions not taken by this board since the introduction of the EPL. It is hardly surprising therefore that the very reason we have not been sold is the lack of assets and the encumbent debt combined with the probability of an excessive asking price. It's no wonder why shareholders want answers. We all do.

I hope the AGMs are reinstated for the sake of good governance and a modicum of transparency. For the ability to question as is their right, those who hold office as custodians of this club.

Lastly, the business end of this club needs to be held to account by its shareholders; in any business, the role of management by the board is to make decisions that secure the future of the enterprise. I would ask each director in turn what they have brought to the table to justify their position as a director – that's exactly what shareholders have the right to do at an AGM, to refuse access as a matter of convenience is shameful.

I hope the meeting is a forerunner to a return to the original Articles of Association, an attempt to listen and work with shareholders and fans alike, an attempt to heal the very decisive split that the club has caused through its arrogance and intransigence to its fan base and shareholders in the club.

The very reason there has been dissatisfaction was the inability to answer genuine concerns that resulted in fans questioning the reasons decisions were made and the intentions for the future, custodians or carpetbaggers? It is the question at the very heart of the matter; it has tainted the element of trust and, in any love affair, a lack of trust always ends in a parting of ways. The fans will never walk away from the team, ever. But this Board of Directors will change... the sooner, the better.

Dave Kelly,the best of luck to you sir. You have always come across as an honest and articulate man, and always interested in putting our beloved club first (sadly, not what the board does).

Up the Blue Boys.

Dave Kelly: proud to share a last name with you. :)

Good luck and finally may we get answers to SOME if not ALL of these burning questions that have been obfuscated for so long.

Hopefully people have caught onto these shenanigans and won't let Bill dismiss questions as "boring".

SMH

"For what it's worth though I suspect they will let the last item come good for us and they will reinstate the AGM - and for that - well done to everyone who put the effort in to making this happen."

I doubt it, otherwise why have they changed that agenda item by removing the first bit ("To have a show of hands...") which was on the original requisition?

They'll go straight to a "poll vote" which counts the shares owned by those voting rather than the number of shareholders. Do you think maybe they knew every hand in the room (bar those on the top table) would have shot up to vote for re-instating AGMs?

Of course they'd still have been able to go to a poll vote after the show of hands, but to announce that "shareholders overwhelmingly voted to reject re-instating AGMs" would surely appear disingenuous after seeing a sea of hands voting in favour.

They avoided the show of hands vote at the Destination Kirkby EGM, and here's how the Echo reported the result at the time: "The voting was 622 in favour of the motion and 26,553 against, 97.71% of the votes." This after hundreds of shareholders were locked out because the room was too small.

After the EGM, when everyone has had their say, what happens next to benefit of the club we all support and invest so much of our time into?

My gut feeling is that our current ageing fan base are sufficiently motivated to do something that moves the club forward from a plucky 6th PL position.

On a related note, the horned ones across the park really did show what's possible with a powerful fan's union and a strategy. I've been sceptical of the BU (as I am with any pressure group) but, as an umbrella organisation, it would probably represent our best chance of forcing a change 'Spirit of Shankly' style.

As an explanation of my scepticism, the BU seem to be too political. Not in terms of motivation – more in terms of not attacking the board head on. But, regardless of that, any trade unionist is a brother or sister of mine.

Plus, I forgot to put the question out there: 128 AGM's since 1878 must mean that Kenwright has disrupted the fan's input even more than a world war? Is my assumption of the AGMs suspension's correct?

Under PJ other operating costs were between £2.5M and £4M which mostly/all was the mortgaged loan he acquired. What is the other £20M added to it by BK for? Anyone running their own company that gets asked what is the item that entails 30% of their firm's expenditure was, to receive an answer "I don't know," defies belief. It is my opinion that our transfer fund is being used to cover this, but what are we covering?

The club would certainly have benefited from giving a basic summary of OOC, but I actually don't think the amount itself, or BK not knowing off the top of his head what they were, is necessarily as demonstrative of incompetence as its portrayed.

Are we being carpet-bagged by stealth? By one of our own acting as a figure-head for others to sponge interest payments for loans incurred from within? The OOC is a convenient auditing tool for non-disclosure. ...... but £20+m to us is far too substantial to be swept under the carpet in the Odds and Sods column.

Typically, of the present EFC directorate, they may unnecessarily be causing suspicions to arise because of their failure to give details of these costs even verbally at an AGM. Or am I being naïve?

By the way, will you be there for ToffeeWeb on the 26th. I hope so!

But of course the misuse (or misbehaviour!) of proxies as disruptive elements was at the time given as the main reason for kicking AGMs to the kerb... so it will be very interesting to see how they plan to handle proxies for this General Meeting.

However, the conviction that the Directors are going to be somehow be held to account by the fearsome stare of the small shareholder is, I think, a little misplaced. The tough questions may get asked... but the form book indicates they won't really be answered, and the 'embarrassment' some may seek to impose or extract won't really be forthcoming.

For me, as one of those small shareholders, it's more the principle of the whole thing... but I am not under any illusions that having the meeting or indeed reinstating AGMs is likely to see change on any of the key issues of concern for the small shareholders.

Personally, I don't think BK is capable of holding it together.

ps: Any chance of a live feed?

Maybe we'll ask George to try a direct feed from his iPhone...

He is just an absolutely embarrassing moron. But, Bobby M will be used to it as he has had to cope with Whelan for 4 yrs.

Kenwright is well aware of the club's financial predicament; don't be fooled by his Manuel 'I know nothing' persona when questioned. Green & Earl are brilliant businessmen, they wouldn't be involved in this club for the love of it.

I am not talking about the final sale price here either, they could easily manipulate the accounts for annual returns, in the BVI maybe?

The second point you raise is interesting. It is always possible that the "friends of the club" BK so often tells us about are the ones lending the club money, and making a tidy return off it. When you consider our net transfer spend, even allowing for piss poor commercial performance, we must be paying a colossal amount of interest and finance charges.

As long as the club stays in operation, why would they want to give that earner up?

Can you imagine the returns when charging 10% interest? It's so easy to then pay the interest into another 'vehicle' as they say, and everyone's a winner!

It wouldn't be a stretch to say Earl & Green had put together the whole deal. I think the latest figures say the whole industry in the UK Is worth £3 billion.

A huge attraction for financial shenanigans!

If I could suggest not only to question the asking price for EFC but also "any other terms" that have deterred potential buyers. I doubt they will get a straight answer but it would be interesting to see the reaction.