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

[Pat's Van]

Invasion of the @chicoazul fence sitting multis perhaps?

long has it been written in the GOT scriptures that the day would come when they would rise up

 

[Toffeelover]

Anyone noticed that the poll is now down to 77% for a change of board (think not so long back it was hitting 80%) for the board to go and the I'm indifferent/Can't decide is on the rise?
Invasion of the @chicoazul fence sitting multis perhaps?

For some the idea of change is threatening, their motto is better the devil you know than a new one.

 

[Muppet Basher]

Think some people are probably concerned about this new consortiums rep and/or were hoping for investors with more wealth than these seem to have

We can only guess the wealth of the investors, because we don't know who the others are in the consortium .

 

[Toffeelover]

True. Lets say my reading of this leads me say that Bills health, or not, has not been a trigger to this blizzard of take over rumours then.

My interpretation is different to yours.

Like you say, neither of us know. But just think speculating about anyones health, in the absence of any facts, is just a bit distasteful.

No matter which view one takes, BK and Co will make a nice return on the original cost of their shares if it goes through.

 

[Verbal Kint]

I get the impression that the anti Bill brigade are already setting up a scenario were Bill gets blamed for selling the club to the wrong owners, so for Bill its a lose lose situation.....

Who else should we blame then, and what a ridiculous statement. If our new owners prove to be good will it not be because of Bill who by the way will have made £100m give or take.

I'd regard that as a win win wouldn't you, or does that sound anti Bill.

 

[roydo]

Temp lock on this as a new thread has been opened re our potential new Merican Overlords.

PM a mod to reopen. Ta

 

[Woolly Blue]

General, non takeover, board talk in here please.

 

[joey_macmo]

I don't understand this "both sides" argument. Why the need for such division? Surely we are all Blues and we should have enough common ground to overcome any differences in approach and strategies when dealing with the board.

With regards to the issue of biography or auto-biography the whole discussion arose when I made the distinction. In the same post I also highlighted the claim the Green had bought Everton.

My point in highlighting this is not to embarrass an individual poster (he and I have had perfectly amicable private conversations) but to highlight that any fan group that wishes to take on someone like Green to task must be extremely precise in their comments and claims. The lack of precision does two things. Firstly it makes any defence by the board or others much easier as the inaccuracies will be highlighted to discredit the bigger argument and secondly people who recognise the inaccuracies are less likely to join a group because of them.

On a wider note, if there is such a body of evidence against substantial claims why has there been no meaningful action to bring any wrongdoing to the authorities and to shareholders ? There may be perfectly legitimate reasons, lack of resources, lack of expertise etc but from my perspective to make claims and then not to follow them through is an odd strategy. What does it hope to achieve?

As I said to begin with, there's more common ground than there is areas of division, let's debate but let's not be devisive.

once again esk you seem to ignore the direct quotes from Green, Kenwright & Gregg.

They all show that Green has some sort of involvement. We don't know to what extent but none of them has refuted those quotes to the best of my knowledge.

Again I don't think that Green owns shares but he is involved one way or another according to direct quotes.

Edit, now that the board thread has reopened could a mod please move this post cheers

 

[Nobby Nobbs]

Hi mate can you direct me to these quotes from green and co, I'd like to read them.

 

[The Esk]

once again esk you seem to ignore the direct quotes from Green, Kenwright & Gregg.

They all show that Green has some sort of involvement. We don't know to what extent but none of them has refuted those quotes to the best of my knowledge.

Again I don't think that Green owns shares but he is involved one way or another according to direct quotes.

Edit, now that the board thread has reopened could a mod please move this post cheers

Mate, I am not disputing any of the public comments made by Green, Gregg or Kenwright, what's been said has been said.

For absolute clarity though, I dispute entirely the issue of ownership of the club.

The owners of the shares are as stated in the reports and accounts and on the share register.

Anyone who has evidence otherwise should come forward with that evidence or stop making such claims (I appreciate you are not making that claim).

 

[Billyliar9]

If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck...good chance its a duck...

 

[Billyliar9]

A few years ago it was reported by Bascombe i think, that EFC officials had been summoned to a meeting at Arcadia Group Headquarters..

 

[Mutzo Nutzo]

A few years ago it was reported by Bascombe i think, that EFC officials had been summoned to a meeting at Arcadia Group Headquarters..

Yesterday in the Takeover thread you mentioned that Green had paid Gregg directly for his shares. Are you talking about Anita Gregg? As far as I understood it. Bill initially borrowed £7 million from Anita Gregg for his stake in True Blue Holdings. When the in-fighting began and Bill was attempting to gain full control he obviously had to payback Anita. Are you saying that Green paid Anita the £7 Million?

Also at the same time as this, up stepped Robert Earl and as I understand it he was the one who paid for Paul and Anita's shareholding (23%) held by BCR sports. Bill also at this time upped his shareholding by some 10% to become the majority shareholder and so gain control.

In order to do that Bill would have had to stump up approx £7 million to increase his shareholding, along with the £7 million owed to Anita Gregg for his initial stake in true blue holdings. That's £14 million he would have had to find. AFAIK he was as poor as a church mouse at the time.

So do the maths and you find that Bill has somehow managed to get his hands on £14 million and BCR sports buys 23% of the shares for approx £16 million.

£14 million + £16 million = £30 million in total.

Didn't you quote Phil Green as saying that he gave Bill Kenwright £30 million? hmmmmm!

 

[joey_macmo]

Afaik it was Paul Gregg who said Green paid him for his shares. Could be wrong though

 

[Billyliar9]

Yesterday in the Takeover thread you mentioned that Green had paid Gregg directly for his shares. Are you talking about Anita Gregg? As far as I understood it. Bill initially borrowed £7 million from Anita Gregg for his stake in True Blue Holdings. When the in-fighting began and Bill was attempting to gain full control he obviously had to payback Anita. Are you saying that Green paid Anita the £7 Million?

Also at the same time as this, up stepped Robert Earl and as I understand it he was the one who paid for Paul and Anita's shareholding (23%) held by BCR sports. Bill also at this time upped his shareholding by some 10% to become the majority shareholder and so gain control.

In order to do that Bill would have had to stump up approx £7 million to increase his shareholding, along with the £7 million owed to Anita Gregg for his initial stake in true blue holdings. That's £14 million he would have had to find. AFAIK he was as poor as a church mouse at the time.

So do the maths and you find that Bill has somehow managed to get his hands on £14 million and BCR sports buys 23% of the shares for approx £16 million.

£14 million + £16 million = £30 million in total.

Didn't you quote Phil Green as saying that he gave Bill Kenwright £30 million? hmmmmm!

Thats correct, but the payment for Greggs shares..ie Paul, for BCR was in fact paid for direct from Green..but the maths is right.