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

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

If I banned AGM's, refused to itemise OOC's, and plainly refused to answer questions on the subject knowing full well all the majority shareholders would side with me it wouldn't really matter.

You could probably do the same with catering & corporates, merchandising and raising finance if you were that way inclined.

My uncle's a small shareholder he hasn't got a clue who we get our pens and paper off, nor would he be able to find out.

It would matter if you were knowingly creaming off cash from the business by purchasing massively overpriced goods from a 3rd party company that you owned. You would be failing in your responsibilities as a Director if you didn't inform the other shareholders of the fact that you were going to profit from the deal & therefore you'd be breaking the law.

 

[davek]

I banned them? haha, so you've decided that I'm a board member have you? That's a frighteningly simple World that you inhabit Dave.

Oh sorry, I thought with all your posts accusing others of libel and defamation of character that you must be.

The calls for clarity around the numbers are between the club & it's shareholders, if the shareholders want further detail then (as I've said before) imo the club has a moral obligation to deliver that.

What I've taken issue with, is those who are citing the OOC's as an area of suspicion & specifically in relation to it being an area where Kenwright could be taking money from. Go back to #8099 & see where I joined this debate & in what context.

As for 'black & white' it is black & white, as whichever way you cut it, for the OOC's to be hiding anything that's unexpected, then it equals fraud. The 'clarity' being called for by the usual suspects (you included) is based on mis-trust & you are by definition therefore intimating that there could be fraud at play.

But you know this isn't a serious argument about personal financial gain from club income, it's about getting answers to questions that no one is in any position anymore to get answers to. It's about, in short, accountability. And until the club becomes accountable there will always be a whispering campaign about other operating costs. And understandably so.

It's a quarter of club turnover (big enough to be the entire turnover of some smaller PL clubs) - lazy and dismissive explanations about 'lawnmowers, shinpads and paint' just wont do the job.

Deflect away though.

 

[Deleted member 28206]

You don't have to say things directly to be libelous, it is enough to simply paint a picture. There is so much libel in this thread it is untrue.

Hmmm.

Really?

 

[Allezfan]

The OOC is unusually high for a premier league club and unusually high compared to everton seasons in the past hence people are questioning what exactly has led to it increasing.

There absoloutly is a major expence that we now put in OOC that we didn't used to and other clubs don't and you will never convince me otherwise.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Can't do that sadly, since merely quoting a libel made by someone else is considered to be as much of a libel as the original.

I asked for an example - you could have linked to it. Excellent evasion of the fact that there is no libel here other than your accusation that this site tolerates and hosts libel.

Why the weird behaviour though ?

 

[D410]

You seem quite keen on this mate.

I could,nt agree more. It appears operation goodison is in effect and they do have their orders to follow.

 

[Brennan]

There are so many things wrong with that post I don't know where to begin.

What a nothing post that is.

 

[steken1]

It would matter if you were knowingly creaming off cash from the business by purchasing massively overpriced goods from a 3rd party company that you owned. You would be failing in your responsibilities as a Director if you didn't inform the other shareholders of the fact that you were going to profit from the deal & therefore you'd be breaking the law.

What mechanism would a small shareholder, who almost certainly only holds a minutae of the total shares, mostly for sentimental reasons, have to uncover this devious practice?

What if a business associate owned it and I chose to do business with them?

What if I knowingly mismanaged an area of the business so it was loss making to create a reason to outsource a massively lucrative area with something coming my way in return?

You know as well as I do no owner will ever take a dividend out of his club and get away with it. They have to be clever to squeeze money out. You honestly think the characters in our boardroom haven't done this?

If you want to silence the doubters, KEIOC, the BU etc, publish an itemised OOC for one year only. Judging by the things Elstone tried to sell it as you'd hardly be giving the game away. Why not? You could damage every single opposition organizations credibilty in one felled swoop.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/2012/12/11/everton-chef-scoops-national-prize

Denise Barrett-Baxendale, Chief Operating Officer at Everton Football Club and CEO of Everton in the Community

Must have missed that announcement.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

What mechanism would a small shareholder, who almost certainly only holds a minutae of the total shares, mostly for sentimental reasons, have to uncover this devious practice?

They wouldn't, but what's that got to do with it being illegal? You were suggesting that the example you gave was something that a Director could do, I pointed out that if he did he'd be breaking the law.

What if I knowingly mismanaged an area of the business so it was loss making to create a reason to outsource a massively lucrative area with something coming my way in return?

So let me get this right, I knowingly (over many years) make a loss on say........catering for example, with the 'end game' being that loss gave me the opportunity to credibly outsource the function (how many years do I have to **** it up for?) whilst pocketing a nice wedge via (presumably) a back hander? hahaha, who planted that seed? as it's one of the best yet

You know as well as I do no owner will ever take a dividend out of his club and get away with it. They have to be clever to squeeze money out. You honestly think the characters in our boardroom haven't done this?

The accounts clearly say that they haven't, I take it you believe that they have then? based on what? As this the crux of what I've been talking about, unsubstantiated intimated fraudulent activity being spoken about as if it's 'fact'.

 

[steken1]

They wouldn't, but what's that got to do with it being illegal? You were suggesting that the example you gave was something that a Director could do, I pointed out that if he did he'd be breaking the law.



So let me get this right, I knowingly (over many years) make a loss on say........catering for example, with the 'end game' being that loss gave me the opportunity to credibly outsource the function (how many years do I have to **** it up for?) whilst pocketing a nice wedge via (presumably) a back hander? hahaha, who planted that seed? as it's one of the best yet



The accounts clearly say that they haven't, I take it you believe that they have then? based on what? As this the crux of what I've been talking about, unsubstantiated intimated fraudulent activity being spoken about as if it's 'fact'.

The whole point of this debate is that the accounts don't say anything clearly.

I'm not stating anything as fact or accusing anybody of anything. I'm just pointing out that owners can extract money from football clubs in a seemingly innocuous manner without breaking the law.

They can also do it sailing close to the wind as it would have to be proven in court that they knowingly mismanaged the business.

Looking at the resources of most small shareholders groups and those of a group of owners I think it's fair to say which way that'd go.

What I believe is this. When people see great amounts of money it's natural to want some of it for yourself. I believe in almost all big business there will be corruption or misappropriation of funds somewhere along the way, to varying degree's depending on the processes each business has in place and the type of business involved.

It's human nature.

 

[sheeds]

If I owned Everton FC I could set up an office supply company tomorrow and charge £10 a biro with a 100,000 a year and 400,000 notepads at a tenner a go too. It would be completely legal and above board. It would still be me syphoning money out the club though.

It's not quite as simple as fraud or above board at all.

I'm far from convinced bill is an evil money grabber intent of damaging the club but personally I think some of his associations and business ideals that may or may not have the best interests of the club leave a bit to be desired. I'd hope everyone associated with the club had our best interests at heart but all we can do is speculate .

The problem for me is when judging football business and dealings it's often hard for it not to look a 'bit iffy' even when it isn't . For example I do have concerns about rumours that abound about Green's association with the club especially when looked at with rumours of Green's association with piña zahavi and the dealings of that agent with the yakubu & bilyaletdinov transfers and perhaps a view that everton paid at the top end for those deals ?

The above are just rumours I've heard more than once but there are rumours about loans at prohibitively high interest rates and more. I don't necessarily always think the worst of kenwright although I can see why others find themselves in the more distinct camps but a lack of transparency is always likely to cause speculation and concern amongst the fanbase.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

The whole point of this debate is that the accounts don't say anything clearly.

I'm not stating anything as fact or accusing anybody of anything. I'm just pointing out that owners can extract money from football clubs in a seemingly innocuous manner without breaking the law.

They can also do it sailing close to the wind as it would have to be proven in court that they knowingly mismanaged the business.

Looking at the resources of most small shareholders groups and those of a group of owners I think it's fair to say which way that'd go.

What I believe is this. When people see great amounts of money it's natural to want some of it for yourself. I believe in almost all big business there will be corruption or misappropriation of funds somewhere along the way, to varying degree's depending on the processes each business has in place and the type of business involved.

It's human nature.

Your point about the mis-managing of a business stream being part of a 'plan' to then outsource that area for personal gain, is tin foil hat, alehouse nonsense.

I wasn't talking about civil law btw, I was talking about criminal law.

So to the crux of what forms your view is "human nature"? So the availability of funds automatically creates a desire for millionaires to break the law in order to line their own pockets with some invoicing or other equally snide scam? So this happens at every company in your world does it mate?

Brilliant stuff.

 

[nigelcoyb]

They wouldn't, but what's that got to do with it being illegal? You were suggesting that the example you gave was something that a Director could do, I pointed out that if he did he'd be breaking the law.



So let me get this right, I knowingly (over many years) make a loss on say........catering for example, with the 'end game' being that loss gave me the opportunity to credibly outsource the function (how many years do I have to **** it up for?) whilst pocketing a nice wedge via (presumably) a back hander? hahaha, who planted that seed? as it's one of the best yet



The accounts clearly say that they haven't, I take it you believe that they have then? based on what? As this the crux of what I've been talking about, unsubstantiated intimated fraudulent activity being spoken about as if it's 'fact'.

You keep banging this drum but all I see are people wanting answers about where the money goes. Given most say we are ****/ordinary/punching above weight (take your pick) because of money seems a reasonable request especially as 25% of T/O is under a non specific, could be anything title of OOC.

The underlying question is why has the club not been sold, we guess at reasons primarily because the state of finances at GP can't be understood, THIS money may be legally spent but that is not the same as saying it's been used wisely.

To my mind THIS is what questioners want answered; are these people competent? or even worse are they taking the piss?

The historic subterfuge and cavalier attitude to fans suggest these questions need answers, I really think you are doing yourself no favours focussing on what is at best bar room abuse of Kenwright & co.

It's more serious than a minority name calling him.

 

[Allezfan]

So the availability of funds automatically creates a desire for millionaires to break the law in order to line their own pockets with some invoicing or other equally snide scam? So this happens at every company in your world does it mate?

Most of them.