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

[ToffeeTim]

Irks me big time the way people refer to him as "Bill" like he`s your lovely neighbour or favourite Uncle
The man has lied to us for years just so he could remain on his throne
"Kenwright" is probably the kindest way I`d refer to him as

I call him Bill because I'm fairly sure it's his name. People call me by my name sometimes too. Seems to be the done thing these days.

 

[roydo]

I doubt theres anything wrong with seeking advice/guidance from a " trusted friend",but would you allow that person to tell you what to produce in the factory or who to employ? Would you feel the need to hide or deny that the friend was in anyway connected?
I can't say anything was underhand or illegal I just find the whole denial line a bit iffy

Yeah, the denial line is the odd bit, unless it was along the lines of in no official capacity I guess.

I thought the whole Green/Bill/Earl thing was pretty common knowledge anyrate. Hence me asking the difference between that a "Shadow Director"

 

[The Esk]

What is the difference between being a trusted adviser to, lets say Bill, because of a friendship and his business experience, and a "Shadow director"?

Like, if I had the cash or inclination to start a business, I would be right on the phone to @The Esk for some help, and I would continue to do so until I either didnt need to, or he told me to shut up. If he was happy to help me out with a few bob to buy a new factory or something, would that be wrong. (It would certainly be stupid if he did mind).

Not defending anyone, just honestly unsure of the issue really.

It's a good point you make because a de-facto director is someone who acts as a director but has not been formally appointed. So in the example you give, yes I could be viewed as taking on the role of a director (de-facto) without ever having been appointed as such, just by virtue of providing advice and guidance. Similarly Green, if proven to have advised Bill, have met management, have been part of management decisions (as alleged over the years) could be viewed as a de-facto director or shadow as referred to in the HoC.

Being a de-facto director you become subject to the same duties and liabilities as a de jure director under the Companies Act 2006 (CA2006) and certain other legislation, including the Company Directors Disqualification Act.

The issue for me, and I suppose most others was that if he was involved as a shadow director, and if he was involved in financing the club, and financing other director/shareholder acquisitions at the same time why this was not declared, and even to the last AGM vehemently denied?

 

[roydo]

It's a good point you make because a de-facto director is someone who acts as a director but has not been formally appointed. So in the example you give, yes I could be viewed as taking on the role of a director (de-facto) without ever having been appointed as such, just by virtue of providing advice and guidance. Similarly Green, if proven to have advised Bill, have met management, have been part of management decisions (as alleged over the years) could be viewed as a de-facto director or shadow as referred to in the HoC.

Being a de-facto director you become subject to the same duties and liabilities as a de jure director under the Companies Act 2006 (CA2006) and certain other legislation, including the Company Directors Disqualification Act.

The issue for me, and I suppose most others was that if he was involved as a shadow director, and if he was involved in financing the club, and financing other director/shareholder acquisitions at the same time why this was not declared, and even to the last AGM vehemently denied?

Cricky.

It is a murky pool they are in then. To say the least. Er, allegedly.

Guess the problem is proving anything, hence the statement being made in the HoC.

 

[The Esk]

Cricky.

It is a murky pool they are in then. To say the least. Er, allegedly.

Guess the problem is proving anything, hence the statement being made in the HoC.

Cricky.

It is a murky pool they are in then. To say the least. Er, allegedly.

Guess the problem is proving anything, hence the statement being made in the HoC.

To be honest, in the absence of fresh evidence or if no one is prepared to talk in public I doubt much will happen. If as Paul Brown stated the PL have already said there's no evidence I doubt the FA will look further unless something new comes up.

 

[roydo]

To be honest, in the absence of fresh evidence or if no one is prepared to talk in public I doubt much will happen. If as Paul Brown stated the PL have already said there's no e idence I doubt the FA will look further unless something new comes up.

Phew.

 

[The Esk]

Phew.

The unwillingness of the old guard to answer questions at last year's AGM is likely to feature again this year, and until they've gone it's going to create a very bad atmosphere which is a great shame particularly if we have information on the new stadium being released.

I hope it's something Moshiri wants to sort out, as for all the search for excellence on the pitch, and off it in terms of the EiTC and the former player's foundation, there's little evidence to date of excellence reaching the boardroom. I can't believe that Moshiri would allow such circumstances to continue though.

 

[roydo]

The unwillingness of the old guard to answer questions at last year's AGM is likely to feature again this year, and until they've gone it's going to create a very bad atmosphere which is a great shame particularly if we have information on the new stadium being released.

I hope it's something Moshiri wants to sort out, as for all the search for excellence on the pitch, and off it in terms of the EiTC and the former player's foundation, there's little evidence to date of excellence reaching the boardroom. I can't believe that Moshiri would allow such circumstances to continue though.

Still a bit upset you cant buy me a factory.

 

[Jb90efc]

@The Esk do you think Moshiri will attend the AGM?

 

[The Esk]

@The Esk do you think Moshiri will attend the AGM?

Yes

 

[The Esk]

Still a bit upset you cant buy me a factory.

Oh ok then...

 

[AndyC]

Still a bit upset you cant buy me a factory.

Would you settle for a train set instead ?

 

[Eggs]

The unwillingness of the old guard to answer questions at last year's AGM is likely to feature again this year, and until they've gone it's going to create a very bad atmosphere which is a great shame particularly if we have information on the new stadium being released.

I hope it's something Moshiri wants to sort out, as for all the search for excellence on the pitch, and off it in terms of the EiTC and the former player's foundation, there's little evidence to date of excellence reaching the boardroom. I can't believe that Moshiri would allow such circumstances to continue though.

...i suspect Moshiri will know exactly what has been going on. What i don't know is if this was apparent when he was 'looking at the books' before taking the plunge.

 

[roydo]

Oh ok then...

No, seriously, it would not be a good idea. Unless you need to create a Donald Trump esq loss for future tax planning that is.

Back on topic. The AGM will be interesting, but not too interesting I hope.

 

[Jb90efc]

Yes

Nice one, I thought with him not being a director and his apparent lack of wanting the public limelight that he may choose to stay away.