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

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I'm not sure that is the case, but even if it was, Kenwright would still be at fault.

I advocate the idea of borrowing money now on the back of the new TV money, but if it was done and Sky went bust then it would still be the fault of the individuals who went out and took the risk. Clearly.

So you'd say that loaning cash against the forthcoming TV increase was something that EFC should be doing, but would equally blame whoever signed the paperwork if it went tits up? Ok mate, I think you've laid your agenda out clearly there.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

You do have proof of that, right?

The only thing we know for sure is that while other clubs around us like Villa and Newcastle were busy tying up these mug investors like NTL for a £20-£30M upfront windfall, Bill and his hired hands missed the boat...and because they did they then 'made up for' this by taking out a secutritisation deal that loaned the club £30M with an interest rate paid back over 25 years handing us into the bargain a whopping £75M total EFC has to pay back to the Pru.

They should be punted down the road for just that one error that crippled us in their first year or so in charge, nevermind the two failed stadium bids and the other assorted **** ups along the way.

Strange that you've omitted the fact that £19M of that £30M was the unsecured overdraft that was left over from the Johnson era, odd that.

The stadium **** ups have no relevance to NTL going bust either, but sum up why you can't view anything board related with any form of perspective Dave.

 

[davek]

Strange that you've omitted the fact that £19M of that £30M was the unsecured overdraft that was left over from the Johnson era, odd that.

The stadium **** ups have no relevance to NTL going bust either, but sum up why you can't view anything baord related with any form of perspective.

So you have no proof of the completed NTL paperwork then?

Noted.

 

[nsno-chris]

So you have no proof of the completed NTL paperwork then?

Noted.

Do you honeslty think they could have secured a loan with no evidence?

 

[davek]

Do you honeslty think they could have secured a loan with no evidence?

What loan? We're talking about the NTL sponsorship deal that never was.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

What loan? We're talking about the NTL sponsorship deal that never was.

The overdraft was extended to cover the player purchases that Kenwright authorised off the back of the NTL deal.

Do you think the bank extended it by £8m without any formal proof as to how it was going to be repaid?

 

[D410]

The overdraft was extended to cover the player purchases that Kenwright authorised off the back of the NTL deal.

Do you think the bank extended it by £8m without any formal proof as to how it was going to be repaid?

DaveK was asking you for proof - you ducked it

 

[nsno-chris]

What loan? We're talking about the NTL sponsorship deal that never was.

The overdraft was extended to cover the player purchases that Kenwright authorised off the back of the NTL deal.

Do you think the bank extended it by £8m without any formal proof as to how it was going to be repaid?

As FLHD stated; loan, extended overdraft whatever you call it; are you honeslty that silly to state that it was approved without no formal documentation being presented.

How would the bank explain that to the regulators?

 

[Essex Blue]

You assume (maybe rightly) that the Vibrac loan is connected to Earl, given the postal address, but it's still nonetheless an assumption & not a proven fact. You've then assumed that he chose the interest rate. You've then further assumed that the interest rate charged is beyond what the business could expect to obtain in the current corporate finance market.
You've also assumed that the club was capable of obtaining a loan in market at all, given the current economic climate & the disdain with which football clubs are currently viewed with. (hence the forced OD reduction).

Would I prefer it I he'd have gifted it us, or loaned it a 0% APR? of course I would. But am I going to automatically conclude that this loan is somehow him goosing EFC? No Im not. You have however have made a handful of assumptions & concluded that they're 'fact'. btw I think the Vibrac loan was first taken in 2011 maybe renewed this last summer.

How many Directors are exposed & prosecuted is irrelevant to those actions being as bent as a nine bob. You appear to be insinuating that the lack of (to your knowledge) legal action taken, means that there's hoardes of Directors all filling their boots at their shareholders expense. It's yet another assumption based on jack ****.

And you have made the assumption that nothing untoward is taking place at Goodison, seemingly out of the belief that such practices are against the law, and that Kenwright and Co would be facing criminal charges if the directors are doing what they are being accused of.

But it’s simply not true, directors are taking the piss out of companies up and down the country without consequence, simply because the accusations are so incredibly difficult to prove.

Take the previous Yanks at the RS, there is no way that the loans they provided the RS with were in the best interest of Liverpool Football Club, nor do I believe for one moment that their loans corresponded with the best rate that was available on the market, and yet, they haven’t been subjected to criminal prosecution. The same goes with all the crap that happened at Pompey.

In short, those in charge at Everton are wise business men, and if they wanted to cream a particular percentage of their own revenue for themselves, then they would manage to do so without having the police knocking on the door, arresting them, and then questioning them at the police station.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

DaveK was asking you for proof - you ducked it

Oh hang on I'll nip & get a copy out of my filing cabinet.

The bank wouldn't have massively extended the already bloated OD without some form of proof that the deal was about to conclude. But I'm sure you & your 'experts' will know better.

 

[Essex Blue]

So you'd say that loaning cash against the forthcoming TV increase was something that EFC should be doing, but would equally blame whoever signed the paperwork if it went tits up? Ok mate, I think you've laid your agenda out clearly there.

Yeah, I'm clearly agenda driven when I'm admitting that I would advocate a similar course of action that left us in the sh*t when NTL went bust.

I'm being honest in saying that I am an advocate of taking such a risk, but I'm not two faced enough to deny that the person who took the risk would be at fault if it happened to go tits up.

 

[D410]

Oh hang on I'll nip & get a copy out of my filing cabinet.

The bank wouldn't have massively extended the already bloated OD without some form of proof that the deal was about to conclude. But I'm sure you & your 'experts' will no better.

Well here is the thing, you have taken one poster to task for his assumptions yet you seem quite happy to spray your assumptions without proof. See your post history below. Can you prove that fella or is it just an assumption !

Foot Long Hot Dog
Player Valuation: £3.25 million

Join Date
Aug 2012

Fiddling the tax man or cash on the turnstiles "one for you, one for me "take your pick, but there was defo dodgy attendances being declared

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

And you have made the assumption that nothing untoward is taking place at Goodison, seemingly out of the belief that such practices are against the law, and that Kenwright and Co would be facing criminal charges if the directors are doing what they are being accused of.

But it’s simply not true, directors are taking the piss out of companies up and down the country without consequence, simply because the accusations are so incredibly difficult to prove.

Take the previous Yanks at the RS, there is no way that the loans they provided the RS with were in the best interest of Liverpool Football Club, nor do I believe for one moment that their loans corresponded with the best rate that was available on the market, and yet, they haven’t been subjected to criminal prosecution. The same goes with all the crap that happened at Pompey.

In short, those in charge at Everton are wise business men, and if they wanted to cream a particular percentage of their own revenue for themselves, then they would manage to do so without having the police knocking on the door, arresting them, and then questioning them at the police station.

I have made no assumptions whatsoever. I have refused to accept that it's OK to suggest that there's anything untoward going on at Goodison without any form of PROOF. I also have refused to accept that throwing round libelous accusations is somehow OK, because Kenwright is a cartoon hate figure.

Your examples of the red ****e & Pompey aren't relevant as the individuals concerned owned all of the equity & there were no other shareholders. You'll also find that the in the RS's case the loans were on a holding company not on the football club anyway.

As for your last paragraph, you're concluding that they because they're mentally capable of formulating a plan to extract cash from a business, that might be hard to track & prove, that they'll do automatically do it? That's like saying that if you worked in a bank & had easy access to cash that you'd automatically pocket some,solely because you can. You've got nothing but your own set of (seemingly loose) morals & your imagination to back up your 'theory'.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Well here is the thing, you have taken one poster to task for his assumptions yet you seem quite happy to spray your assumptions without proof. See your post history below. Can you prove that fella or is it just an assumption !

Oh dear, post dredging, the preserve of the sad & desperate.

Can I prove that? no I can't. Was I there every week & regularly witnessed the attendances appearing to be much larger than announced? yes I was / did.

I didn't come to a conclusion either brains, but nice try though.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I'm being honest in saying that I am an advocate of taking such a risk, but I'm not two faced enough to deny that the person who took the risk would be at fault if it happened to go tits up.

That's both illogical & hypocritical imo.