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

[D410]

Can I prove that? no I can't. .

Thanks, My work is done here for the day.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Thanks, My work is done here for the day.

You must be proud, fabulous input.

 

[Essex Blue]

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, your concluding that they because they're mentally capable of formulating a plan to extract cash from a business, that might be hard to trak & 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'.

I have made no conclusions whatsoever. I'm stating that what they are being accused of is entirely possible, and that having a law which makes it illegal does not make it impossible, and that there will be people who have done exactly what Kenwright is being accused of without being subjected to criminal prosecution.

The holding company that owned Liverpool Football Club? I can remember Hicks and Gillette trying to use that in their CIVIL law case, and it was given short shrift. To me, the fact that the Yanks felt the need to have a 'holding company', and the fact that one third of our shares belong to a company in the BVI, whose ownership remains unknown, says it all IMO.

They know how to get round these laws without consequences, and if they have an agenda that requires them to do so, I don't think some effort of a legislation will prevent them from carrying it out.

 

[Essex Blue]

That's both illogical & hypocritical imo.

It's neither.

Acknowledging the risk, advocating taking such a risk, and accepting the consequences if it goes wrong is entirely logical.

Whereas I find taking the risk and blaming other people because you chose to take a risk to be illogical.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I have made no conclusions whatsoever. I'm stating that what they are being accused of is entirely possible, and that having a law which makes it illegal does not make it impossible, and that there will be people who have done exactly what Kenwright is being accused of without being subjected to criminal prosecution.

The holding company that owned Liverpool Football Club? I can remember Hicks and Gillette trying to use that in their CIVIL law case, and it was given short shrift. To me, the fact that the Yanks felt the need to have a 'holding company', and the fact that one third of our shares belong to a company in the BVI, whose ownership remains unknown, says it all IMO.

They know how to get round these laws without consequences, and if they have an agenda that requires them to do so, I don't think some effort of a legislation will prevent them from carrying it out.

Your argument makes little sense, as of course what they're being accused of is entirely possible, anything's possible ffs.

What's entirely wrong, is accusations being flung around that have no basis in fact. Merely conjecture spun into possibility, which in some quarters (as this thread proves) appears to have already lodged itself as 'fact'. If you can't grasp my point after explaining it numerous times, then I wasting my time repeating it further.

I've no idea what relevance H&G have to EFC & it somehow "says it all" to you, you've lost me? Holding companies are common place in business btw.

If I wanted to commit fraud I could do it, same as you could. But would you like me to accuse you of it based solely on the potential opportunity you might have to commit it????

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

It's neither.

Acknowledging the risk, advocating taking such a risk, and accepting the consequences if it goes wrong is entirely logical.

Whereas I find taking the risk and blaming other people because you chose to take a risk to be illogical.

haha, the first sentence is entirely correct, but not what you were saying.

What you were saying, was that you'd advocate the business taking the risk, but you'd then criticise the person who actually signed the paperwork if it went tits up. So despite agreeing with their course of action, you'd turn turtle if it proved to be a call that went wrong. I bet you're a great employee you lad

 

[steken1]

I know its been discussed, but i'd welcome the facts. I have google'd the deals and i can't find a list comparing all othe other clubs in the premier league.

Its not about Kenwright deniers refusing to see the facts. Show me the facts and i'll happily comment.

Surely going and finding them yourself would be a good idea before you offer your support of the deal.

 

[nsmith1721]

After reading all this why exactly can't/won't the club explain that budget line?

 

[davek]

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?

You and the other feller are assuming the bank signed off a loan to the tune of millions on the off chance it'd be covered by the promise of a cheque from NTL when they'd have known how tenuous it all was?

Give your heads a wobble. You can think again if you think that tortuous logic stands as 'proof' that a deal was at the paperwork stage with NTL.

In your own time: paperwork proof. Cheers.

 

[Coach]

Well even Bill's arch-enemy Paul Gregg said he did enormously well with the NTL deal

If you remember at that time there was all that speculation about whether NTL or Granada or one of those companies would spend thirty or forty million with Everton Football Club. It wasn't anybody's fault that circumstances were such that we were there just at the end. The time that Bill had spent in negotiating purchase of the club, if that had been managed maybe a year earlier, then maybe at that point it might have been far easier to get a company to write out a big cheque then. By the time we were in a position to negotiate it we had two unfortunate situations. I had negotiated one with United Newspapers and Bill had progressed enormously well with NTL, and United Newspapers sold to Granada and because of their relationship with Liverpool they were unable to go ahead with the deal and that was within seven days of a contract being signed. Likewise, NTL simply ran out of money.

 

[steken1]

I have always been critical (well before the Kit Bag deal and BK's regime) of our commercial operations, its an area tat the club has fallen behind for many years and we have lost a lot of ground. However, I would you (or someone else) to explain to me how this is a bad deal given the our current financial situation and the need to free cash flow. I'm not concerned with other clubs, I would like for you to explain how you would have negotiated an alternative deal or what other way you would have concluded this business.

To me the KitBag deal does seem bad on paper, but its not actually that bad, not brilliant, but not bad, and if someone can answer my question above I'll explain my reasoning as to why i think the deal is ok. Lets see if anyone can answer this without crappy little comments like 'well spurs have negotiated £xxxx'

I'll try. We've been up for sale for 10+ yrs according to Bill.

One massive area any new owner would exploit to increase revenues coming into the club would be shirt sales and merchandising in addition to bigger kit deals with more prestigious brands.

Any new owner coming in and doing this would be doing it solely for the benefit of Kitbag as they pay us a set amount, which is smaller than a lot of sides make with lesser fanbases, for the next 6-7yrs. Also any negotiation on kit deals and distribution will have to be handled by Kitbag as our manufacturer will have to have thier approval to work with the club. The rumour was that the nike deal that saw us get nothing up front or per year was negotiated by Kitbag.

Throw in the corporate/catering is outsourced too and you have to ask why anybody would buy a business(failing at that) that they would have little control over.

WE WILL NOT BE SOLD UNTIL AT LEAST THE KITBAG DEAL EXPIRES.

 

[nsno-chris]

You and the other feller are assuming the bank signed off a loan to the tune of millions on the off chance it'd be covered by the promise of a cheque from NTL when they'd have known how tenuous it all was?

Give your heads a wobble. You can think again if you think that tortuous logic stands as 'proof' that a deal was at the paperwork stage with NTL.

In your own time: paperwork proof. Cheers.

No Dave; innocent until proven otherwise.

In your own time; proof that a deal was agreed without sufficient evidence being provided.

And while you're at it, pop into your local bank, tell the bank manager that someone is about to give you £300k to buy a house, so you want a loan to buy that house, once you receive the money from the third party you'll pay the bank back straight away.

See what answer you get?

 

[Del]

I'll try. We've been up for sale for 10+ yrs according to Bill.

One massive area any new owner would exploit to increase revenues coming into the club would be shirt sales and merchandising in addition to bigger kit deals with more prestigious brands.

Any new owner coming in and doing this would be doing it solely for the benefit of Kitbag as they pay us a set amount, which is smaller than a lot of sides make with lesser fanbases, for the next 6-7yrs. Also any negotiation on kit deals and distribution will have to be handled by Kitbag as our manufacturer will have to have thier approval to work with the club. The rumour was that the nike deal that saw us get nothing up front or per year was negotiated by Kitbag.

Throw in the corporate/catering is outsourced too and you have to ask why anybody would buy a business(failing at that) that they would have little control over.

WE WILL NOT BE SOLD UNTIL AT LEAST THE KITBAG DEAL EXPIRES.

How many years do we have left on the kitbag deal lad?

 

[davek]

No Dave; innocent until proven otherwise.

In your own time; proof that a deal was agreed without sufficient evidence being provided.

And while you're at it, pop into your local bank, tell the bank manager that someone is about to give you £300k to buy a house, so you want a loan to buy that house, once you receive the money from the third party you'll pay the bank back straight away.

See what answer you get?

The loan would have been given on the basis of how all our loans have been given: secured revenues - either PL tv monies or gate receipts, not some pie-in-the-sky 'bill's on a promise from a cable telly company' basis.

As I say, in your own time with the NTL paperwork proof.

 

[steken1]

How many years do we have left on the kitbag deal lad?

6 at the end of this season mate.