The Everton Board Thread 2015/16 [ Not takeover related ]

[Dithering Dougie]

These demands for absolute evidence when we're dealing with billionaires, BVI hidden ownership companies, high ranking board employees that turn mute when leaving due to NDA's.....just a touch worrying

Grassy knoll..Area 51....flags flying on the moon...jet fuel etc etc etc

 

[Chang Elephant]

Grassy knoll..Area 51....flags flying on the moon...jet fuel etc etc etc

Oh Dougie, you are a "one"

 

[bourneblue]

These demands for absolute evidence when we're dealing with billionaires, BVI hidden ownership companies, high ranking board employees that turn mute when leaving due to NDA's.....just a touch worrying

Am sure any NDA would be nullified if evidence of corruption and financial wrong doing came before a court.
NDA'S are the usual cop out clause of the usual suspects,akin to the esc button on your pc.

 

[marty mcfly]

Am sure any NDA would be nullified if evidence of corruption and financial wrong doing came before a court.
NDA'S are the usual cop out clause of the usual suspects,akin to the esc button on your pc.

Unfortunately its a bit chicken and egg. You can't get the evidence because of the NDA and you can't break the NDA without the evidence.

 

[The Esk]

These demands for absolute evidence when we're dealing with billionaires, BVI hidden ownership companies, high ranking board employees that turn mute when leaving due to NDA's.....just a touch worrying

Mate, I'll come off the fence and spell it out for all:

If there was any truth in any of the various claims made by various parties as to the connections between shareholders, directors and lenders then there would have to be disclosure in the company accounts. Unless they and the auditors are all complicit in a criminal act of non-disclosure then the various allegations add up to nothing.

The most likely reason for there being no evidence is that there is no conspiracy.

 

[Pienaar's gloves]

The WatchedToffee tweets are interesting and may even be true but links to Green may be the result of this person putting two and two together and making five.

There is no way to know.

We do know that they are utilising material available for all of us and forming certain conclusions which may or may not be true.

 

[The Esk]

Unfortunately its a bit chicken and egg. You can't get the evidence because of the NDA and you can't break the NDA without the evidence.

Wrong, entirely wrong

 

[bourneblue]

Unfortunately its a bit chicken and egg. You can't get the evidence because of the NDA and you can't break the NDA without the evidence.

Behave you can't hide criminal goings on behind and NDA agreement.

 

[marty mcfly]

The WatchedToffee tweets are interesting and may even be true but links to Green may be the result of this person putting two and two together and making five.

There is no way to know.

We do know that they are utilising material available for all of us and forming certain conclusions which may or may not be true.

I don't think so. It think @Azza was on the money. They aren't fabricated documents. It's all there.

Essentially WatchToffee has linked the JG Funding loan that ourselves and West Ham have taken out back to a company called Taveta Investments, which is basically Philip Green & his family - see here for a quick summary of their holdings.

The main Taveta is based on the Isle of Man, they are 2 companies registered in the UK of that man, and Green is listed as a director of both and Karen Brady (the West Ham link) is listed as a director of 1.

JG Funding are basically a front (via another offshore company, back to Teveta) as they financially wouldn't be able to put up the £20+ million (or what ever it is this season) for us and West Ham to have.


It's all legal and technically there's nothing wrong with it. But it's pretty poor on everyone's part as he basically skims off the Sky money each year. Not sure why it's been done through JG Funding and not Vibrac this year though.

 

[Chang Elephant]

If there was any truth in any of the various claims made by various parties as to the connections between shareholders, directors and lenders then there would have to be disclosure in the company accounts. Unless they and the auditors are all complicit in a criminal act of non-disclosure then the various allegations add up to nothing.

Agreed, there should be disclosure in the accounts. But in the completely unlikely alleged event that a director chose not to disclose a connection with a BVI company , how far would the auditors duties go in investigating the BVI entity, and how far would they get with an investigation of a BVI Co's ownership in practice anyway. In which case the auditors would not be compliciit ?

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Mate, I'll come off the fence and spell it out for all:

If there was any truth in any of the various claims made by various parties as to the connections between shareholders, directors and lenders then there would have to be disclosure in the company accounts. Unless they and the auditors are all complicit in a criminal act of non-disclosure then the various allegations add up to nothing.

The most likely reason for there being no evidence is that there is no conspiracy.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Thanks to the esk. Putting my long-winded replies to the conspiracy theory so succintly

 

[marty mcfly]

Wrong, entirely wrong

Why is that wrong?

I'm talking about a civil case not a criminal one.

 

[RaleighBlue]

What are you giving it? He was talking in riddles and didn't grasp the simple basics of turnover vs profit. Pipe down yerself if you've got nowt constructive to add.

Talking in riddles?

It's simple - invest in building the brand as well as the players on the pitch. That investment is a requirement for the long term financial stability of the club. If we fail to invest in the brand, then bad tactics, bad luck, a couple of bad buys and bye bye Everton - we can't afford a mistake.

You are harping on about turnover vs profit and failing to realize that 100k more in the bank (Assuming £1.25 million turnover - £1.15 million extra expenditure) is more than we currently have.

But go on and continue to defend total inaction as the correct course. I'm sure it will work out well in the end if we just hope really hard that things work out.

 

[SerenityNigh]

Mate, I'll come off the fence and spell it out for all:

If there was any truth in any of the various claims made by various parties as to the connections between shareholders, directors and lenders then there would have to be disclosure in the company accounts. Unless they and the auditors are all complicit in a criminal act of non-disclosure then the various allegations add up to nothing.

The most likely reason for there being no evidence is that there is no conspiracy.

Yes mate, but Enron