The Everton Board Thread (Inc. Bill Kenwright / Blue Union)

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Well, there's the rub of it. Such are the appalling politics at the club that the shareholders are presently trying to persuade the board/majority owners to reinstate the mechanism by which those questions might be asked. So you can see how the curiosity will continue into the future when and if the SA appeal is knocked back.

You give the impression it's all a matter of procedure and that channels are available to clear the matter up. That's either willfully misleading or supremely naive. The majoriity owners want everything to do with running the club left vague. Clarity is their enemy.

Elstone's lame list of lawnmowers, paint, shinpads and jumpers for goalposts is as good as it's going to get.

....still we are forced to continue to wonder what's really in that catch-all other operating costs category.

The re-instating of the AGM's should happen (even if the format is maybe altered & proxys banned) as the shareholders need an opportunity to air their opinions & ask relevant questions.

With regards to your second paragraph, you suggest I could be wilfully misleading & then post a highly subjective opinion as 'fact' lol. If you have proof that a shareholder has asked for some level of detail around the numbers & been flatly refused then I'm sure you'll share it..............

The relish with how you view this cost area is quite funny tbh, as if it's some pandoras box that when unlocked will provide the key to finishing Kenwright.

The reality will be a mundane list of costs, that provide no insight into anything, but would no doubt lead to a conspiracy theory around the high costs of bog rolls & a dubious link to Kenwright owning shares in a wood mulching plant in Borneo.

The point I've been trying to make throughout, is that the intimation of wrong doing around this subject adds nothing to the cause for change. As I'm an advocate for change, but have no personal hatred of Kenwright & find baseless mud slinging of this nature distasteful & I therefore have to correct what left unchallenged could make people come to the totally worng conclusion.
There's been some absolute pony spouted about this issue, by people who quite frankly have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Ihaters]

I know the dictionary definition of miscellaneous. You have told us absolutely nothing we don't know. I would like you to explain how stationary and sprinklers have managed to double the miscellaneous budget. The handy thing about the definition of miscellaneous is that, as you have precisely said, it can potentially cover everything and anything, we means it is most at risk of collusive exploitation, should there so be any.

Would that not be picked up by the external audit?
Do they not do a full exam of the finances from how much we psent on Milk for the half time refreshements through to the signing of Mirrallas?
Genuine quesiton by the way, I really don't know how in depth they go with these things. I assume it would be total financial checking in which case there being nothing of suprise or concern in there as far as they are concerned should be enough to not panic about unecessary fraudulant activity.

 

[Brownie]

From the OS, first thing you read on the accounts page:

"Each year Everton Football Club publishes it's statement of accounts."

Please Everton.

 

[Royal Blue Jersey]

Would that not be picked up by the external audit?
Do they not do a full exam of the finances from how much we psent on Milk for the half time refreshements through to the signing of Mirrallas?
Genuine quesiton by the way, I really don't know how in depth they go with these things. I assume it would be total financial checking in which case there being nothing of suprise or concern in there as far as they are concerned should be enough to not panic about unecessary fraudulant activity.

I said at most risk. I didn't even say anything untoward had happened, but can anyone not see the obvious potential, and therefore, the obvious need to know? Just to allay fears? I don't see why people are being so defensive over such a growth in operating costs of such an inexplicable magnitude.

 

[Goat]

From the OS, first thing you read on the accounts page:

"Each year Everton Football Club publishes it's statement of accounts."

Please Everton.

Our CEO has already stated our debts havent increased that much.

Thats just great, now can you please explain where the 24m shortfall in transfers has gone, you massive sunburnt weapon.

 

[Goat]

Not you Browns mate.

 

[nsno-chris]

I know the dictionary definition of miscellaneous. You have told us absolutely nothing we don't know. I would like you to explain how stationary and sprinklers have managed to double the miscellaneous budget. The handy thing about the definition of miscellaneous is that, as you have precisely said, it can potentially cover everything and anything, we means it is most at risk of collusive exploitation, should there so be any.

What can be covered up that would bypass the auditors?

How can we make any credible predictions without facts.

You are purposely backing people into a corner so that you can extract a guess from them that you can then rip in to.

I'm not backing people into a corner; i've tried give an account as to why certain decisions were made on previous posts and get nothing but silly comments back; so now i'm putting the question back on the masses.

 

[Allezfan]

Would that not be picked up by the external audit?

Goldman Sachs were reguarly audited. It would be nice to think that any dodgy dealing is picked up by audits, and I certainly have a hard time thinking kenwright is doing anything too untoward myself, but it isn't always the case.

 

[Muggins]

The question is, why should they ?

People are implying that because they aren't broken down into precise purchases that we have something to hide.

A fair question mate. You are right, they don't have to at all.

But if they are going to publish their accounts for fans to see, then how can they be surprised when people question Other Operating Costs.

My point is, nsno-chris is probably right, so why not detail it. How much harm can it do? i'm genuinely open to suggestions why it could be harmful. But for the most part it would settle half of this thread.

Also Brennan, I don't want to seem condescending at all, but...

By that logic so must every other club in the country, because i haven't seen that they break down OOCs either.

That point is only valid for a neutral perhaps assessing different clubs accounts. We are obviously only fans of Everton so that all we care about. I do think if other clubs fans were in our position, they would do the same. Sort of whats happening at Arsenal maybe.

I'm no expert, just debating. So please breathe before replying...

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

So in 12 months, all of these items doubled in price?

Wow.

Its not the column we have an issue with, its the 10m increase, but hey, im an idiot for asking just why this happened.

The operating costs increased by £9M from £12M in 2007 to £21M in 2008. This makes a nice headline.........

However, those who chose to highlight this fact, seemingly chose to ignore the fact that this figure was £17M in both 2005 & 2006.

So the differential was never as great as some would have you believe, as £12M was never the starting point.

 

[Goat]

The operating costs increased by £9M from £12M in 2007 to £21M in 2008. This makes a nice headline.........

However, those who chose to highlight this fact, seemingly chose to ignore the fact that this figure was £17M in both 2005 & 2006.

So the differential was never as great as some would have you believe, as £12M was never the starting point.

No your right, 9m was the starting point.

 

[Brennan]

A fair question mate. You are right, they don't have to at all.

But if they are going to publish their accounts for fans to see, then how can they be surprised when people question Other Operating Costs.

My point is, nsno-chris is probably right, so why not detail it. How much harm can it do? i'm genuinely open to suggestions why it could be harmful. But for the most part it would settle half of this thread.

Also Brennan, I don't want to seem condescending at all, but...



That point is only valid for a neutral perhaps assessing different clubs accounts. We are obviously only fans of Everton so that all we care about. I do think if other clubs fans were in our position, they would do the same. Sort of whats happening at Arsenal maybe.

I'm no expert, just debating. So please breathe before replying...

I'm not sure what you're trying so say with the second part of your post mate, or why i'd find it condescending :blink: That bit you quoted was a response to people who are saying that because the OOCs are not being detailed there must be something nefarious going on, and that if that were the case you could make the same accusation to any sell to buy club in the country, as they all have other operating costs and from what i've seen none of them publish detailed line by line transaction lists.

 

[Essex Blue]

Nobody denies that Kenwright’s expenses are paid out of Everton money, but would people place a limit on the amount of money that would be deemed as an acceptable level of expenses? In which case, it would be interesting to see how much of Everton’s money is spent on Kenwright’s expenses?

Also, to suggest the likes of Phil Green don’t know how to LEGALLY manipulate the accounts is naive in the extreme.

It’s a tenuous example, but what is stopping Everton paying a company a handsome fee for ‘security advice’, or ‘transfer advice’? Nothing illegal would have taken place, it could be kept in the rather ambiguous OOC, and the company providing the ‘services’ could even be registered abroad?

I’m not saying this is definitely happening, but I believe it can and does happen, and if there is nothing illegal in doing so then the auditors wouldn’t even bat an eye-lid, because nobody would have done anything wrong?

 

[Muggins]

I'm not sure what you're trying so say with the second part of your post mate, or why i'd find it condescending :blink: That bit you quoted was a response to people who are saying that because the OOCs are not being detailed there must be something nefarious going on, and that if that were the case you could make the same accusation to any sell to buy club in the country, as they all have other operating costs and from what i've seen none of them publish detailed line by line transaction lists.

haha, no I just didn't want to write "I don't care about everyone else!!! only Everton" in a crappy response way. As you do have a point, but not one that is relevant as to why they do not detail these costs. Only that them not being detailed does not mean something sinister is happening, which I totally agree with.

My point being, detail the OOC and its settled. But like I said earlier, could detailing OOC harm the club in any way?? Is there a genuine business reason why they don't, other than the fact they don't have to??

For me that is the burning question.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

No your right, 9m was the starting point.

£9M was starting point when exactly?