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

[D410]

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

Somebody has been writing about it for quite a while in the public domain.

 

[Chang Elephant]

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


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, [Poor language removed] 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.

Post the detailed breakdown of OOC's you promised before you Halal butchered the lamb and we can speak mate

 

[Steve Wigan]

For (poor language removed) above, substiute the word Richard, because we're not allowed to say D**k . Thats Duck, if anyone asks.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Post the detailed breakdown of OOC's you promised before you Halal butchered the lamb and we can speak mate

I didn't promise anything, and your continued deflective pseudo ignorance of this fact is fooling no one.
You said I had Halal butchered lamb. Not true, Does that make you a liar? Not in my book.

 

[Chang Elephant]

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.

I'll play - Spurs have a premium income on ticket prices which is pure turnover and based on Capital city prices. The gap would be a lot smaller if the Kings Dock money had been "ringfenced", Kenwright hadn't lied about that, and we had been ensconced in a premium location 55,000 seater stadium on Liverpool waterfront for 10 years now. As you know I like to be objective about the board but you've made me point out a blatant lie straight off !

 

[The Esk]

Somebody has been writing about it for quite a while in the public domain.

and is what they have written backed by admissible evidence? If so what is stopping seeking justice?

 

[SerenityNigh]

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.

It's reasonable to consider this a possibility. Whether it's reasonable to consider this your null hypothesis is a different matter.

 

[Steve Wigan]

Can't wait for the link to all this public domain stuff I've missed........

 

[Chang Elephant]

It's reasonable to consider this a possibility.

Good, we're all happy then mate

 

[Chang Elephant]

Can't wait for the link to all this public domain stuff I've missed........

We're waiting for the public domain stuff on EFC OOC details first Steve, there's a queue here

 

[davek]

We're waiting for the public domain stuff on EFC OOC details first Steve, there's a queue here

...to be fair to Steve Wigan he's waiting too...waiting on the people who dumped tens of millions of quid into the OOCs category and didn't fully explain what it's gone on.

 

[BoysInBlue]

10 pages added to this thread in the last 24 hours. I thought something had actually happened, but nope, just the usual arguments for and against.

 

[davek]

10 pages added to this thread in the last 24 hours. I thought something had actually happened, but nope, just the usual arguments for and against.

I think we all learned a few valuable lessons though. I know I did.

 

[toffee matt]

I think we all learned a few valuable lessons though. I know I did.

That Steve Wigan eats lamb for dinner?

 

[SerenityNigh]

Don't think there's going to be much contention over what the headings can be....more interest in what Everton have "allocated" against each heading.....and following on from that whether the allocations seem plausible and why the sudden jump in their overall total ?

Which "jump" in OOC are you talking about? There's clearly an accounting change from 2004 to 2005, but I'm not versed enough in the books (and not an accountant) so it's not obvious to me what the changes were. In 2004 you see that "Other Operating Costs" are £504,000, but in 2005 the restated 2004 numbers show this to be £12,120,000. The 2005 numbers also omit these categories from 2004 and previous years: "Professional Costs", "Other Costs", and "Merchandising." The sum of these categories in 2004 was $36,908,000. I do not think "Professional Costs" includes "Wages and Salaries" since this subheading totals to £33,171,000 for the same year. I'd need someone smarter than me to sort out exactly what the Professional Costs are (because I can't get them to add up), but If you're looking for the "increase" in OOC, I think you've found that it's nothing more than a change in accounting and a restatement of values to reflect a new accounting standard. If you're speaking of some other jump, please excuse my presumption. Using the 2004 restated values (omitting OOC for prior years), you have: