Green accused of being 'shadow director' at Everton

Matheson said Philip Green met with former Blues manager (Martinez or Moyes ?) and chief executive Robert Elstone to discuss transfer activities. Matheson brought up the subject of offshore entities involved with football clubs.

The Club have always denied having any undue involvement with Green and at last year's AGM in November Elstone rebuked a question on the matter, seen by many as an all time low in his stewardship of Everton.

The whole sordid affair of Green and the Vibrac arrangement will continue to leave a stain on Everton and all those connected with it, namely Kenwright and Elstone. How both individuals remain on the board given the influence of Farhard Moshiri is anyone's guess.

The FA are more interested in selling the product than governing the sport and that has created a wild-west type environment where anything goes as long as it benefits the profitability of the 'game'.

As for Everton FC, whilst everything is probably legitimate and above board, there are questions to be answered as to who paid for Robert Earl's shares and perhaps even about our new 'owner' Mr Moshiri who appeared at a very opportune moment, given the situation surrounding a certain yacht-owning, retail magnate. I hope that Mr Moshiri is the real deal and not another 'vehicle' that Mr Kenwright is using to maintain his hold on the club.

Have a look at Evertonviral.com because, apart from some good well research articles, there is one 'the power behind the throne' which gives a fair bit of detail about this matter. Then make your mind up.

I've been told he's been doing the same stuff at West Ham since Kirkby failed and they were going for the Olympic Stadium.

It is not illegal to do that and if we did it, then the money borrowed was presumably used as working capital by the club, which again is totally legal.

Green's reputation has taken a battering lately but I don't understand why EFC is being dragged down by some fans as a result of an alleged association with him. There are far more dubious characters around clubs than him!!

If Phil Green had influence over a football club without declaring that interest, he would at the very least have broken current FA regulations but what else? If he invested money and made a profit, did he pay all his taxes? If he conspired with another board member to achieve that profit, perhaps that board member is a conspirator... but, if all was done in the (private) full knowledge of the board, it isn't easy to see a criminal offence being committed?

The answers to this, and many more questions, may never be arrived at (paraphrasing SOAP 1977).

Paul Brown ✔ @pbsportswriter
Premier League insist looked into ownership of #efc when Moshiri bought stake, found no evidence of Philip Green acting as 'shadow director'
3:47 PM - 19 Oct 2016

However, this report by Gregg O'Keefe in the Echo states that Sir Philip had no comment to make when asked about his role at Everton.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/philip-green-asked-everton-shadow-12048863

It is more serious in insolvency situations but nevertheless still puts a cloud over the club but more so the individual.

Silence is golden, and I wouldn't expect Green to break the golden rule just yet!

Have you ever seen a more polished now-you-see-it, now-you-don't?

Deceitful, underhanded fucker. No wonder Bill admires him so much.

Shadow director? Of course he was and so what?

I say only one thing. If laws were broken, then let's know about it; if Green did anything to the detriment of the club, then let's know about it. If he provided finance at good rates, then let's praise the bloke for helping get us where we are now from a hopeless position.

It was a hopeless position that Bill found himself in and it was allegedly Green who helped him out. That doesn't mean it was a completely hopeless position for Everton FC.

(Paraphrasing Pirates of the Caribbean 2003)

Have a look at www.Evertonviral.com

The power behind the throne.

It may give some insight...

Sir Philip Greed, no friend of Everton. The local Echo reporters have been complicit to the cover up, tragic really given the vehement campaign that they endorsed and supported to rid Liverpool FC of the Cowboys Hicks and Gillette.

Now, I expect that you will think that he is entitled to benefit from his investment. Fair enough, but I will not praise him for it.

In my view he is an odious creature and I believe he will be brought down.

EFC, like all football clubs, has been run by rogues and Green is just one of them.

"He was very instrumental in our survival."

Phillip Green is a parasite.

Did he sell his soul, because his other sole had holes in them?

You have no knowledge of the inner workings of the club. You therefore cannot comment.

Next.

Common sense also says that if everything was completely 100% above board, he would have been a registered shareholder and probably a director. It's the hiding of his involvement that stinks.

Thanks again to Chris Williams and for Blue Union and their supporters for their fight against the Kirkby ground proposal. Without them, it is quite likely we'd be stuck supporting Everton at this God forsaken hole in Kirkby, not the town I assure you, but the football ground in Kirkby.

Nice man.

Just sayin'.

Ciaran @25, you really do struggle with comprehension don't you? We survived and he was part of it. Can you join the dots? For personal gain of course but that's no law breaker.

Please, please don't reference Colin Fitzpatrick's rantings as fact. He's a sensationalist and he has no more access to the inner workings of the club than any other fan.

Seriously, like all of you, I know nothing about the financial shenanigans associated with EFC over the years but, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it was all above board... and if it wasn't, then who gives a shit. Who are we to moralise?

Green and Kenwright have faced no court of law over illegal dealings and are therefore still innocent of any crime. We have recovered from nearly going out of business to being on the verge of a new ground and successful team. Somebody has been doing something right.

If you still believe that Kenwright and Green had Everton's interests at heart and not their own, it will not surprise me. I think you will agree with me when I tell you I think they were a very devious couple, out to make a lot of money out of Everton FC.

I think they are worthy of a much longer look at the way they have dealt with affairs concerning the club. You think they have done nothing wrong; there is no crime in me thinking they done plenty to line their own pockets.

At least tell me you have read the articles.

Sale of various assets round about that time, for example, the sale of Arteta and others.

Other things which went unexplained at the time.

For those who have still not looked, www.Evertonviral.com
"The power behind the throne" – Just for interest.

David@34, can you point me to the laws that say making money is illegal? No, I don't think they did nothing wrong; I just think that it's nothing to do with us. For both of them., the only way they were going to make money was by Everton becoming stronger so their aims were the same as ours.

Dave@35, I don't agree that Everton FC has to be kept in the City of Liverpool because most Evertonians live outside of the City so what worth does Colin have? KEIOC is nonsense in 2016 and the Blue Union is no more than a joke. I have a song for them called Sing when were Winning, we only moan when were losing. You know the tune.

Abandon ship.

Martin, you rejoice because Everton could be on the way back up, but say that KEIOC is a nonsense in 2016?

I know I call you the Duke, Martin, but maybe we would already be playing in a soulless stadium in Kirkby, if it wasn't for people like Colin Fitz?

Www.Evertonviral.com

However, it is wrong to simply say it is legal for a board of directors to make money... it's the manner which is of legal debate.

Is it anything to do with us? Ordinarily, no. However, like in so many other facets of football, how a club is run and who makes money does have something to do with supporters.

I consider myself to have morals and values (like many on here, I presume). Should the club I support be guilty of morally corrupt behaviour, then that would have serious impacts on my support... (maybe other supporters too)... thus impacting on the club (and local community – Everton in the Community??)

Don't you all just love the honours system? Does it have any honour left?

In the unlikely event that anyone ever tries to anoint me, I will refuse (unless of course the War Department insists, as allegedly happened to a Labour luminary).

So you can all relax. You won't have to address me as Dr Sir Antony of Crosby.

So what? Well for a start Everton would be in contravention of the 2004 Premier League requirement that all owners and directors undertake a test to determine their suitability. Then there's the unanswered questions regarding Kenwright's initial funding of his shares, specifically when and by whom this money was repaid and then the frankly bizarre situation over the sale of the Gregg family's shares and how they ended up in the BVI, which leads to questions over the annual declaration identifying the ultimate beneficial owners of shares held by significant owners.

Despite Everton being named in Parliament I don't think the dcms are about to launch a club or, in the case of Allardyce and Warnock, a manager witch-hunt, the MP's are simply highlighting the sheer inadequacy of the FA when it comes to governing the game. The squirming Greg Clarke, with his off the peg excuse of just being in the job for just five weeks, was visibly uncomfortable when Christian Matheson was asking him about Vibrac and JG Funding, preferring to shake his head in answer to knowing who they are which was surprising as these companies were prevented from lending money to Watford by the FL and the league fined Reading over the consequences of their Vibrac loan.

The FA delegate their responsibility for governance to the PL and FL, and to highlight just one problem with their accepted level of due diligence it's worth looking at the loan Everton obtained from JG Funding, now known as Rights & Media Funding. Within the loan there's a declaration to the PL that confirms JG Funding has no association with James Grant Holdings. It takes you two minutes to discover that David McKnight, one of two shareholders at JG Funding, is an active director of James Grant Holdings, it makes you wonder if these governing bodies undertake anything more than a cursory tick box exercise.

Greg Clarke became slightly more comfortable when the offshore company Moonshift Investments who financed Bolton Wanderers to the tune of £180m. He recognised this name and was happy that Eddie Davies was the beneficial owner who had subsequently written the loan off. Perfectly legitimate you'd think until you discover that it is highly unlikely that Eddie Davies was in such a financial position to write off such a huge amount of money which begs the obvious question who else was involved in Moonshift? Did that question pop into the heads of the FA or did they just, once again, accept the first thing they were told?

Only a complete fuckwit could fail to understand that to know the true sources of money entering the Premier League is very important. If I have time later I'll post an explanation for Martian.

Returning to Green, and here I am sympathetic to Greg Clarke's plight, allegations involving offshore entities are notoriously difficult if not impossible to prove unless the governing body concerned has the power to do so and I think it was very relevant that chair Damian Collins repeatedly asked Clarke did he need extra powers.

Everton's prospects, under Farhad Moshiri, have never looked better, our major debt with Prudential has been settled, it looks like a land deal with Peel has been successfully concluded and whilst far from perfect the team building is underway. Lets hope the disaster of the past won't come back to bite us; in my opinion the sooner Kenwright gets packed off to the back of the director's box and gets given the title president all the better.

The silence emanating from the boardroom & CEO suggest there is in fact some truth to these accusations. After all, this isn't some daft fan's forum circulating rumours around the Winslow is it? A member of Parliament has called out the directors & CEO of EFC for telling some rather large porkies, and possibly worse.

They may want to wait until the AGM to answer the accusations put forward, but if we don't hear any reply, you can only assume that Green did in fact pay for Earl's shares.

Who knows how much influence Green had over the years if he was making money from supplying loans or other financial instrruments? (All perfectly legal of course, apart from breaking numerous Premier League rules & Director's duties and responsibilities) How many sales could he have blocked while we had to sell player after player just to keep afloat?

The worst part of all this is the fact some supporters think it's OK for us to be duped by the main protagonists. Strange.

And, as usual, disappeared when put right.

1. He underwrote a 㿊 million facility to help buy the club off Gregg on behalf of TBH.

Underwriting just enables a loan – it isn't a loan in itself and the loan was paid off within 4-5 years. HOW that loan was paid off is an issue I remain interested in but all Green has done is enable a loan – rather like a guarantor he was the person the bank would go to if the payments weren't met – but apparently they were so this is a non-issue. This point therefore is a non-issue.

2. Subsequently a 㾻 million payment was made to Gregg using a similar facility. It sounds like he got wind of a potential problem with payments so sent in his own accountant - it is difficult to see what is wrong with that. Again he has enabled a loan, not provided it.

So what is a 'shadow director? He certainly exerted some influence over finances and may well have profited from the loans he supported – reasonably in my opinion. He didn't actually make club decisions but he may have encouraged payments to be made which triggered other decisions such as player sales. Again, if his money was indirectly at risk then fair enough and not difficult to see why a CEO would be frustrated by it.

It sounds to me that his only interest was likely the safety of money he had underwritten, not in influencing specifically how Everton was run. No point in him being on the board then (especially as he couldn't be on the board) but asset stripping and wholesale profiteering? Sorry, no.

Tax avoidance – another story.

Other stuff – haven't read it yet.

Did he help Everton FC – yes.

There's a lot more but just for one thing pulling the manager in to discuss transfer budgets – not influencing specifically how Everton was run???

This is not the same as someone who owns part of the business or site on the board. He is more of a shadow financier than shadow director.