The Everton Board Thread 2014/15

[Toffeelover]

I doubt it as there's not likely to be a public interest case against a private BVI lender whom to my knowledge has done nothing illegal.

Maybe not illegal Esk but how about straight up honesty with the fans?

 

[marty mcfly]

In fairness they have enacted Plan A several times.

Plan A is to source a site and waste a few million £ doing feasibility studies. Then put your feet up and wait for the Fairy Godmother to arrive and stump up the cash.

There is no Plan B.

Someone said we will make an extra 120m over the next 4 years from the TV deal. That will go a long way to paying for a stadium. Even half of that will probably allow them to unlock other funding channels to reach the goal.

Whether it will happen or as you said they will waste a load of money planning the move and then have it fall through is anyone's guess. I'm not overly confident either given the history of this board but it is possible.

 

[The Esk]

Maybe not illegal Esk but how how straight up honesty with the fans?

Everton have a duty of disclosure in their Annual Accounts, signed off by their Directors and their auditors. To my knowledge, and I've spent a fair bit of time studying the accounts the only possible areas for criticism is the lack of clarity in "other operating expenses" and the possible non-disclosure of Richard Kenyon's interest in Kenyon Fraser.

The loan arrangements are reported no differently than thousands of other companies and sit in the public domain. The lender sits in the BVI because legitimately there's a minimal disclosure requirement and it's very tax advantageous for its shareholders.

Re communication with the fans, there are clear examples of a lack of honesty in the past, and of course many fans are not prepared to forget this. However being pragmatic, it's time to move on and deal with the future, we can't change the past.

 

[joey_macmo]

The problem with "forgetting the past" is that a lot of ordinary non forum using evertonians have absolutely no clue what has gone on and the failings of the board.

To inform the average evertonian properly of the goings on in this club the past must be brought up.

 

[Chang Elephant]

However being pragmatic, it's time to move on and deal with the future, we can't change the past.

Being realistic, the past is a good indication of how the future will go if the same decision makers are in place.

 

[The Esk]

Being realistic, the past is a good indication of how the future will go if the same decision makers are in place.

Sure, I'm not being naive in any sense, however if fan groups are going to be involved in any way in the future, we have to look forward and build bridges not dwell on the past.

 

[Bluesnapper]

The board will not allow any involvement because a) it admits their failure to move the club on and b) to risky as the fans will get to know for sure the murky dealings.

 

[tonka1878]

Being realistic, the past is a good indication of how the future will go if the same decision makers are in place.

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein

The only question is, who is worse, the Board or the Fans.

 

[Carlito]

@the esk I appreciate your devil's advocate approach to this subject - it certainly makes the discussion more interesting - but I have to ask, do you honestly believe that this board would ever be open to serious input from the fans, regardless of how nicely the likes of the Blue Union agree to approach them?

I don't see what role fan groups could possibly play aside from informing those that would be otherwise unaware of how poorly the club is doing when it comes to anything other than cashing Sky cheques.

 

[Chang Elephant]

The only question is, who is worse, the Board or the Fans.

No need to take a value judgement on the fans when questioning the financial control and management of the club

 

[bizzaro]

Everton have a duty of disclosure in their Annual Accounts, signed off by their Directors and their auditors. To my knowledge, and I've spent a fair bit of time studying the accounts the only possible areas for criticism is the lack of clarity in "other operating expenses" and the possible non-disclosure of Richard Kenyon's interest in Kenyon Fraser.

The loan arrangements are reported no differently than thousands of other companies and sit in the public domain. The lender sits in the BVI because legitimately there's a minimal disclosure requirement and it's very tax advantageous for its shareholders.

Re communication with the fans, there are clear examples of a lack of honesty in the past, and of course many fans are not prepared to forget this. However being pragmatic, it's time to move on and deal with the future, we can't change the past.

Yes. I agree Jedi Master Esk.

However, they should not insult our intelligence as the ECHO have been doing recently. They should also acknowledge the anger that is simmering over the WHP lack of progress and with us being able to look at Spurs, West Ham, the RS and others expanding stadium capacity significantly higher than Everton's current.

Saying 'Everton can't be compared with other clubs' as from Elstone just isn't going to wash.

 

[bizzaro]

@the esk I appreciate your devil's advocate approach to this subject - it certainly makes the discussion more interesting - but I have to ask, do you honestly believe that this board would ever be open to serious input from the fans, regardless of how nicely the likes of the Blue Union agree to approach them?

I don't see what role fan groups could possibly play aside from informing those that would be otherwise unaware of how poorly the club is doing when it comes to anything other than cashing Sky cheques.

I am sure @the esk will acknowledge that EFC commercial revenue wise is not performing to standards.

I don't think this can be denied despite protestations from the club.

 

[The Esk]

@the esk I appreciate your devil's advocate approach to this subject - it certainly makes the discussion more interesting - but I have to ask, do you honestly believe that this board would ever be open to serious input from the fans, regardless of how nicely the likes of the Blue Union agree to approach them?

I don't see what role fan groups could possibly play aside from informing those that would be otherwise unaware of how poorly the club is doing when it comes to anything other than cashing Sky cheques.

Well if I look at other clubs and how fan groups are involved the answer has to be why not? Take Chelsea as an example where there is very strong interaction between the Supporters Trust and the Chelsea Board. So in theory and practice it is possible.

The point I am trying to make in this thread is that supporter organisations have to decide what it is they want to be and act appropriately. If they just want to be a protest group that's fine, but clearly they're not going to be involved in any process if all they do is complain about individuals and the Board generally (no matter how justified many of those complaints will be) and in particular refer solely to the past. I appreciate some feel a duty to do so "to educate" those that perhaps are not so aware of our recent corporate history. However that is a very limiting brief in my mind.

For me, ideally a supporter group should be prepared to look forward and develop a strategy that adds value to the activities of the Board. By doing so the opportunities for engagement and influence improve. Many will argue it is not possible with this Board, but I don't believe this has been fully tested. It would also require individuals who were able to put aside the difficulties of the past and to operate in a totally professional manner, and whose focus was purely on the future development and improvement of the club.

 

[Carlito]

Well if I look at other clubs and how fan groups are involved the answer has to be why not? Take Chelsea as an example where there is very strong interaction between the Supporters Trust and the Chelsea Board. So in theory and practice it is possible.

The point I am trying to make in this thread is that supporter organisations have to decide what it is they want to be and act appropriately. If they just want to be a protest group that's fine, but clearly they're not going to be involved in any process if all they do is complain about individuals and the Board generally (no matter how justified many of those complaints will be) and in particular refer solely to the past. I appreciate some feel a duty to do so "to educate" those that perhaps are not so aware of our recent corporate history. However that is a very limiting brief in my mind.

For me, ideally a supporter group should be prepared to look forward and develop a strategy that adds value to the activities of the Board. By doing so the opportunities for engagement and influence improve. Many will argue it is not possible with this Board, but I don't believe this has been fully tested. It would also require individuals who were able to put aside the difficulties of the past and to operate in a totally professional manner, and whose focus was purely on the future development and improvement of the club.

Fair enough. I wish I shared your optimism, but I very much doubt that this board would be willing to acknowledge its commercial failings, let alone the farce surrounding the search for a buyer/new investment, to a point where fans could hope to influence future strategy.

I think it'd be a different story if we had an Abramovich type in charge, and our only concerns were regarding the colour of the away kits or naming of the next executive suite.

 

[atrottel]

Given that the Echo are supposed to be increasing their Everton coverage, it would be nice to have an update from a journalist on the whole Walton Hall Park thing (even if it is to say that the council and club say nothing is happening or things are simmering away in the background). Make a welcome change from plagiarising bloggers or rewriting club interviews or doing daily live updates mentioning every Twitter rumour twice in one day.