He and Gregg as we know now did not get on - how they could not reach out for that amount of funds is mind bogglingBut what an Evertonian he is! Lucky to have him etc etc
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He and Gregg as we know now did not get on - how they could not reach out for that amount of funds is mind bogglingBut what an Evertonian he is! Lucky to have him etc etc
He nad Gregg as we know now did not get on how they could not reach out for that amount of funds is mind boggling
If thats true he really has been a bad chairman!The thing is though mate, Gregg was willing to put up the funding, but it meant BK giving up being major shareholder.
Wait a minute. Are we saying that people on here would like to have seen us under Greggs stewardship?
I've always found that an interesting question. There were many stories around painting him as a out and out bad man. He clearly appeared to be a ruthless businessman,but most successful business men are. The echo even published a story about his treatment of his sons ,long after he left, as if to make sure his name remained suitably blackened. Truth is we will never fully know the truth.Wait a minute. Are we saying that people on here would like to have seen us under Greggs stewardship?
That wasn't what happened. Gregg said he could attain (not provide) a 'reverse mortgage' on Everton's share of the development, which the then board decided was too risky a strategy. Which given the context of our tenuous league status at that time was risk averse but partly understandable. Looking back it was obviously a massive missed opportunity.The thing is though mate, Gregg was willing to put up the funding, but it meant BK giving up being major shareholder.
That wasn't what happened. Gregg said he could attain (not provide) a 'reverse mortgage' on Everton's share of the development, which the then board decided was too risky a strategy. Which given the context of our tenuous league status at that time was risk averse but partly understandable. Looking back it was obviously a massive missed opportunity.
The deal didn't mean he's have lost his trainset though mate. His shareholding wasn't on the line.Yeah never put it across as I meant to, and I know some of the board were a bit edgy about it, still think though that a lot of it came down to the fact that BK didn't want to give up the train - set.
The deal didn't mean he's have lost his trainset though mate. His shareholding wasn't on the line.
He and Gregg as we know now did not get on - how they could not reach out for that amount of funds is mind boggling
I've always found that an interesting question. There were many stories around painting him as a out and out bad man. He clearly appeared to be a ruthless businessman,but most successful business men are. The echo even published a story about his treatment of his sons ,long after he left, as if to make sure his name remained suitably blackened. Truth is we will never fully know the truth.
Nothing to stop someone making a request under FOI but there are a couple of exemptions they might use, one for prejudicing commercial interests, the other for information due for publication.So whilst the website may be out of date, if someone, under FOI, wanted to know the current owners, would the Land Registry have to provide that information?
Or are you (conveniently) suggesting that the whole process takes weeks and until it's on the website, no-one at the Land Registry could tell you if there's been a change of ownership?