Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

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

Is it time for Change...???

  • Kenwright an the Board out, We need Change.

    Votes: 503 80.0%
  • Im Happy with the way thing are. Kenwright an the Board should stay

    Votes: 126 20.0%

  • Total voters
    629
Status
Not open for further replies.
yep every 3 years pretty much.

the tv money goes up our OOC'S go up.

but explained spending stays the same them OOC'S must be very very effected by money coming into the club.

You can certainly read this both ways:

Hypothesis A: a company's investment is highly dependent upon revenue; sudden or temporary increases in revenue produce sudden or temporary increases in investment

Hypothesis B: a director's self-investment is highly dependent upon revenue; sudden or temporary increases in revenue produce sudden or temporary increases in investment

They don't both have to be true, but for that matter they don't both have to be false. And they don't have to be exclusive. But a predisposition to believing one or the other will color how you read any and all news.
 
Did I mention stealing money btw ? All this ad hominism needs to stop.
People say I'm a good judge of character
Robert earl has not showed up for the last two .egm we have held as a club (even though not held any for previous 5years)
I can defiantly say he doesn't care very much for EVERTON FC ( he is there for the money at the end of the day or yearly loan payment )
 
So, shouldn't we all be arguing that the lack of disclosure is not acting in the best interests of the Company, because of the assumptions drawn by some, rather than as of now "unfounded" accusations of financial impropriety?

The majority of accusations I'm seeing are just being randomly attributed to people, which is a bit of a shame when we can't question our club owner betters over their reluctance to disclose upon concerning financial data. It's a shame, because Bill seems such a genuine guy on the telly.
 
Did I mention stealing money btw ? All this ad hominism needs to stop.

Fair enough. I don't remember you suggesting anyone was stealing money. I think you did mention directors not acting in the best interest of the club, and one or two other things:

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

But from henceforth I'll restrain myself from all summary conclusions that you are suggesting the board is trying to steal/siphon/launder money from the club and instead presume that you mean the board is collecting underpants as part of a massive scheme to make a profit for themselves.
 

You can certainly read this both ways:

Hypothesis A: a company's investment is highly dependent upon revenue; sudden or temporary increases in revenue produce sudden or temporary increases in investment

Hypothesis B: a director's self-investment is highly dependent upon revenue; sudden or temporary increases in revenue produce sudden or temporary increases in investment

They don't both have to be true, but for that matter they don't both have to be false. And they don't have to be exclusive. But a predisposition to believing one or the other will color how you read any and all news.

mate i just thought it odd that OOC'S can be affected by how much money comes in and also where we finish in the league?

are OOC'S that delicate?

wages ect.. defo but OOC'S?
 
Fair enough. I don't remember you suggesting anyone was stealing money. I think you did mention directors not acting in the best interest of the club, and one or two other things:
  • to avoid conflicts of interest
  • not to accept benefits from third parties
  • to declare an interest in a proposed transaction or arrangement
But from henceforth I'll restrain myself from all summary conclusions that you are suggesting the board is trying to steal/siphon/launder money from the club and instead presume that you mean the board is collecting underpants as part of a massive scheme to make a profit for themselves.

What I actually said was "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". That would mean considering/looking into such matters as closely as possible, not ruling anything in or out, no allegations whatsoever.

This ad hominising of yours is becoming upsetting and frankly near libellous mate
 
The majority of accusations I'm seeing are just being randomly attributed to people, which is a bit of a shame when we can't question our club owner betters over their reluctance to disclose upon concerning financial data. It's a shame, because Bill seems such a genuine guy on the telly.

So we would be in agreement then, if we both argued that the lack of disclosure is damaging to the club, rather than "evidence" of financial impropriety, and therefore by not permitting greater disclosure, the Directors are doing the club a dis-service?

That's the obvious conclusion from your comments.
 

mate i just thought it odd that OOC'S can be affected by how much money comes in and also where we finish in the league?

are OOC'S that delicate?

wages ect.. defo but OOC'S?

I think that depends on the nature of your business. You might ask @the esk (which autocorrect always revises to "the eek") for a better description, but here's what I've seen.

Suppose you have an accounting firm with 25 employees, which operates on regular workload and low margins. Costs are relatively known and fixed, but so is income, which is relatively regular. Business investment will probably be regular as well, unless you mortgage your investment through a business loan. Or maybe you bring in a new client that adds 33% workload and revenue with one fell swoop, then you may see irregular investment.

Or suppose you own a real estate development company, with fewer employees and much less regular income (sudden, large increases in revenue). This group will see business investment fluctuate very much in line with revenue, often because new investment is deferred until revenue arrives (since it often arrive in large chunks). Alternately, if this group is owned by someone with deep pockets, the owner may provide a very even business investment, but he/she is taking all the losses and profits on their side in lumps.

A business that may run more like a football club is an airline. I'm not familiar with non-US carriers, but here the industry is running something between a 2% and 5% loss since 1978 (deregulation of the airlines). A typical airline will post these profits: -5%, -10%, -12%, -8%, +58%, +23%. Their business is highly leveraged and takes large chunks of profit in a small number of years to balance out the losses. These businesses are restricted by three main factors: fuel costs (gotta have fuel), airplane lease costs (gotta have airplanes), and worker wages. The only thing within their control is worker wages, so there is a natural antagonism between pilot (all workers, but here I'll simplify) and company in regard to compensation and benefits. When these airlines finally hit their payday, the profits are usually invested in better equipment (new leases on new aircraft, selling old aircraft to smaller carriers from other nations), so that the airplane and fuel fixed costs go down. Little of the profit goes to worker compensation, so the union leverages strikes against the company to increase the pay scale for all workers (within that union).

So it seems entirely reasonable to me that many businesses would reinvest irregularly if their income (or profit) is irregular. Whether that's the cause of OOC fluctuations, I can't say, but it seems reasonable to me.
 
Right that's it, I'm unleashing him on this thread. Goooooo GOJIRA!!!!!!!!

godzilla3.gif
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top