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

[Chang Elephant]

I'm sure Bill knows much more than he alludes to, after all he has a reputation in show business for being shrewd and ruthless, so I find it very unlikely that with a 25% shareholding in Everton he does not know a greater amount of detail than is published or required to be published.

Why do you think he alludes to know nothing about OOC's then, why is he so defensive about them ? Wouldn't a chairman make it his business to seek an explanation for their sudden increase some years ago ?

(asking you purely because of your relevant business background.....others on this thread mention conspiracy/fraud whenever a simple question is asked)

 

[davek]

Why do you think he alludes to know nothing about OOC's then, why is he so defensive about them ? Wouldn't a chairman make it his business to seek an explanation for their sudden increase some years ago ?

(asking you purely because of your relevant business background.....others on this thread mention conspiracy/fraud whenever a simple question is asked)

Whatsmore, it'd save time and effort to simply break the whole costs down just to deal with it once and for all.

I wonder why they wont do that?

 

[The Esk]

Why do you think he alludes to know nothing about OOC's then, why is he so defensive about them ? Wouldn't a chairman make it his business to seek an explanation for their sudden increase some years ago ?

(asking you purely because of your relevant business background.....others on this thread mention conspiracy/fraud whenever a simple question is asked)

Fair question mate!

He probably asks the question in private, as I said I suspect he knows far more than he claims to know.

I think it is unfortunate that he does not just say "I'm under no obligation to disclose any further, therefore I am not" rather than "don't know" or even better, as Chairman make a decision that formal disclosure is valuable and provide more information than required by statute.

I think he's badly advised or refuses to take good advice.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Fair question mate!

He probably asks the question in private, as I said I suspect he knows far more than he claims to know.

I think it is unfortunate that he does not just say "I'm under no obligation to disclose any further, therefore I am not" rather than "don't know" or even better, as Chairman make a decision that formal disclosure is valuable and provide more information than required by statute.

I think he's badly advised or refuses to take good advice.

Those are two possibilities but there's a third if you're willing to entertain the notion that the current owners of a business do not necessarily act in the interests of it's long term customers. And I stress, for Steve, Raleigh from Carolina somewhere etc, that the third scenario can be accomplished legally and illegally.

 

[Royal Blue Jersey]

Oh that's me told then. Nice and considered way of handling an obvious joke.

It's merely what those defending the indefensible must tediously resort to...

 

[davek]

It's merely what those defending the indefensible must tediously resort to...

I couldn't possibly comment mate.

 

[The Esk]

Those are two possibilities but there's a third if you're willing to entertain the notion that the current owners of a business do not necessarily act in the interests of it's long term customers. And I stress, for Steve, Raleigh from Carolina somewhere etc, that the third scenario can be accomplished legally and illegally.

As I'm sure you know the duties of a Director (Companies Act 2006) state the following general duties:

• to act within powers in accordance with the company’s constitution and to use those powers only for the purposes for which they were conferred
• to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members
• to exercise independent judgement
• to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence
• to avoid conflicts of interest
• not to accept benefits from third parties
• to declare an interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement

If people want to attack the Board or individual members of the Board this is the area to start, not unproven allegations of fraud etc.

 

[fozzy]

its ok though lads the extra £30m this year is defo getting spent on transfers.

so all is well.

 

[The Esk]

It's merely what those defending the indefensible must tediously resort to...

Mate, for the record, I am not defending anyone.

 

[D410]

I agree there's not much contention, I was just demonstrating there are numerous headings which fall into the OOC category.

The only possible area of concern is the use of opaque offshore vehicles and the influence of people who might be considered as shadow Directors if you believe the conspiracy theorists, but again I'm not at all sure about that - there's not enough money in a business like Everton to make it worthwhile, and most crucially there is no evidence (to my knowledge) of any wrong-doing financially.

I know a few people who are sure.

 

[D410]

It falls into the territory of libel and posters should exercise caution both for the site and their own good.

The clubs media lawyer still logging in, they must be gutted the can,t get everyone on an NDA on GOT.

 

[RaleighBlue]

Those are two possibilities but there's a third if you're willing to entertain the notion that the current owners of a business do not necessarily act in the interests of it's long term customers. And I stress, for Steve, Raleigh from Carolina somewhere etc, that the third scenario can be accomplished legally and illegally.

I think a number of us, even when we disagree with some of your statements not only entertain this notion, but accept it as the most likely scenario. There are certainly members of our board that are not investing in the club (any of them) and this is harming the club, and therefore harming the customers. This isn't really being disputed by many people.

What is being suggested is that if we have this particular issue, regardless of legality, we should try and find a solution. I merely suggest that the solution is not going to be achieved by shouting down less...vigorous...Evertonians as happy clappers, but would be better realized by focusing on areas in which the board are objectively failing. Conspiracy theories and wink, wink, nudge, nudge stuff aren't holding it up.

Explain why and where the board are failing - I'll start:
Spurs turnover for 2013 was £147 million. Ours was £86 million.

That gap is pretty unacceptable in my eyes.

 

[The Esk]

I know a few people who are sure.

Then you or they have to put the evidence forward - and I say that without wishing one or the other outcome

 

[Chang Elephant]

As I'm sure you know the duties of a Director (Companies Act 2006) state the following general duties:

• to act within powers in accordance with the company’s constitution and to use those powers only for the purposes for which they were conferred
• to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members
• to exercise independent judgement
• to exercise reasonable care, skill and diligence
• to avoid conflicts of interest
• not to accept benefits from third parties
• to declare an interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement

If people want to attack the Board or individual members of the Board this is the area to start, not unproven allegations of fraud etc.

I agree, but don't see that "entertain the notion that the current owners of a business do not necessarily act in the interests of it's long term customers" equates to a fraud allegation. If I was interested in maligning the board rather than my normal even handed objectivity I'd start with the last three on the list:

• to avoid conflicts of interest
• not to accept benefits from third parties
• to declare an interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement

 

[Steve Wigan]

This falls into the territory of known unknowns.

Thanks Dave..I'm glad you've cleared that up.

Those are two possibilities but there's a third if you're willing to entertain the notion that the current owners of a business do not necessarily act in the interests of it's long term customers. And I stress, for Steve, Raleigh from Carolina somewhere etc, that the third scenario can be accomplished legally and illegally.

You have suggested a third notion, backed up presumably by your opinion. So are you suggesting that the same 'notion' might apply to every other club in the Prem which discloses just as much as Everton? I know that you could respond that you only care about Everton, and thats not a problem. I personally(my opinion) think that the fact that the club has not been sold to any Tom, Dick or Harry, and that we are successful on the field, with a reputation for being well run, and that we are not on the verge of administration is an indication that the board are, within their capabilities, acting in the interests of their long term customers. That above is all in the open for the world to see, if it wants to look, and is more than a notion to be entertained. Your third notion is not a visible entity, it simply a suggestion that something could be, or couldn't be wrong with no evidence to support the notion.