Everton Board Close Up Shop

[Louis]

Everton are changing their Articles of Association after the recent EGM was called because of the Kirkby stadium project.

 

The board (who own 73%) now require 10% of the shareholding to call an EGM instead of the previous 20% shareholders requirement. In basic terms, they've raised the number of shares needed to call an EGM from 250 to 3,650.

 

Former directors Arthur Abercromby and Lord Grantchester own 16% between them which leaves 11% to the minority shareholders rendering them pretty much useless.

 

People's Club indeed, pah!

[Romey 1878]

Absolutely pathetic <_<

[Everton_Worshiper]

Everton are changing their Articles of Association after the recent EGM was called because of the Kirkby stadium project.

 

The board (who own 73%) now require 10% of the shareholding to call an EGM instead of the previous 20% shareholders requirement. In basic terms, they've raised the number of shares needed to call an EGM from 250 to 3,650.

 

Former directors Arthur Abercromby and Lord Grantchester own 16% between them which leaves 11% to the minority shareholders rendering them pretty much useless.

 

People's Club indeed, pah!

 

OK appreciate your comments on this one Louis and for once I agree, can we really maintain the "People's Club" motto?

On the flip side, Everton are protecting their interests. If the situation stayed the same then the slightest upset amongst fans and the same shareholders would voted for the EGM this time may vote the same again just out of "spite" rather than genuine concerns.

[Louis]

It is six days after the club said they will be open with the fans.

[Everton_Worshiper]

Just to give a fair side of things from Everton:

 

The Club required – and has now attained – signed copies of the resolution from shareholders holding in excess of 75 per cent of the total voting rights of eligible members. Accordingly, the resolution has been passed, bringing Everton Football Club into line with the vast majority of professional English football clubs.

Hardly "shutting up shop".

 

“It was made clear to us that a section of our shareholders would continue to petition, every few weeks, for General Meetings until they won the right to hold a hand-vote on the future of the Destination Kirkby project – something which the Club insisted at last week’s meeting it was unwilling to consider."

^^ So Everton think the same way as me

 

“Preparing for, and subsequently staging, a General Meeting is expensive and very, very time-consuming. Put simply, it distracts us from the day-to-day running of the football club. If we were to be repeatedly found to be washing our dirty laundry in public, the damage to the Club’s reputation would be simply enormous."

Very good point.

[Bill]

Considering that the board members themselves own 73% of the 75% they would need, i get the feeling that it is without a shadow of doubt, an obvious case of "shutting up shop".

 

There is no way they want to throw another vote open to the supporters, now that an awfull lot more is known about "The deal of the century".

[Louis]

" I said there is a feeling in the football club that communications are not good. I want an open door policy and all the different factions about this, about everything. It's an emotional issue, which should be listened to and supported. " - Bill Kenwright, six days ago.

 

All they needed was Arthur Abercromby to agree in addition, he owned 8% of the club too and is a close friend to the board, he's a former board director.

 

Plus the second EGM proposal had little to do with the stadium. I posted it the other day, it was mainly about the running of the club. It's now been indefinitely put on hold unless Grantchester agrees to it.

[Jimmy the blue]

" I said there is a feeling in the football club that communications are not good. I want an open door policy and all the different factions about this, about everything. It's an emotional issue, which should be listened to and supported. " - Bill Kenwright, six days ago.

 

All they needed was Arthur Abercromby to agree in addition, he owned 8% of the club too and is a close friend to the board, he's a former board director.

 

Plus the second EGM proposal had little to do with the stadium. I posted it the other day, it was mainly about the running of the club. It's now been indefinitely put on hold unless Grantchester agrees to it.

 

 

Louis, I totally agree with you it is very wrong, people should be able to have their say mate

[Randomness]

just taking a cruise through 606 and the people on there are naturally blaming KEIOC.

 

This is a bad move, once the majority see what the board has done, Dirty Linen Public Hanging.

[Everton_Worshiper]

just taking a cruise through 606 and the people on there are naturally blaming KEIOC.

 

Why, shouldn't they be?

[Louis]

The board didn't like what was on the next agenda and have attempted to prevent it, it's that simple.

 

http://www.toffeetalk.com/Another-Egm-Requested-t13080.html

[BlueBri]

Could I make a point that this could be a big step in paving the way for a takeover. It's just dawned on me after reading simiar threads that no-one really knows why we aren't attracting any investors.

 

"The Club required – and has now attained – signed copies of the resolution from shareholders holding in excess of 75 per cent of the total voting rights of eligible members. Accordingly, the resolution has been passed, bringing Everton Football Club into line with the vast majority of professional English football clubs."

 

If we really have been operating with out of sync with the rest of the premiership, then the club effectively nullifying any potential trouble maker for a potential buyout would certainly seem rational. It also means that if bought out, the investor would then have the luxury to run the club as they saw fit and may tempt investment in. Not sure if this would necessarily be good, but who knows.

[Louis]

I think you're maybe reading to much into it, I read it as "We're not the only ones who do this".

[BlueBri]

I think you're maybe reading to much into it, I read it as "We're not the only ones who do this".

 

Possibly Louis, it won't be the first time I've been accused of that. I have just become rather sceptical of what we get to hear about. Almost everything we hear nowadays is given to us with some sort of spin, whether positive or negative, and wouldn't surprise me to find out about a number of reasons this could have been done.

 

It will all come out in the wash though.

Edited September 10, 2008 by BlueBri

[StevO]

Why, shouldn't they be?

 

KEIOC didnt call for the EGM, it was two shareholders who did. so no, they shouldnt be blamed. it seems to me the are being jumped on just like BK has been. KEIOC havent even been mentioned.

[Everton_Worshiper]

KEIOC didnt call for the EGM, it was two shareholders who did. so no, they shouldnt be blamed. it seems to me the are being jumped on just like BK has been. KEIOC havent even been mentioned.

 

My how the tables have turned, do KEIOC not like the negative publicity that is potentially "unfairly" being placed on them?

Edited September 11, 2008 by Everton_Worshiper

[Randomness]

My how the tables have turned, do KEIOC not like the negative publicity that is potentially "unfairly" being placed on them?

 

 

well dk was called in for breaking rules regarding its retail development. Not because KEIOC asked it to be called in.

[StevO]

My how the tables have turned, do KEIOC not like the negative publicity that is potentially "unfairly" being placed on them?

 

how is that even the same? was the bad press keioc game everton unfair when the club were lying to the fans? or are you happy EFC LIED TO YOU?

[Jimmy the blue]

how is that even the same? was the bad press keioc game everton unfair when the club were lying to the fans? or are you happy EFC LIED TO YOU?

 

One mans lie is another's spin Steve. Basically the problem has been that the dissenters found a loop hole which the board have moved to plug. I regret the restriction in freedom of speech but it doesn't surprise me at all. Imagine them reading postings made on these websites to the effect that some would keep on calling EGM's, all they have to say is look at the vote (whether you agree with it or not that is the legal position as recorded by the club's records) the excuse being that this move prevents unnecessary cost to the company.

 

Just look at Newcastle, the Toon army (that always makes me laugh) are supposedly planning this that an the other at the weekend trying to get Ashley out, they will lose as he has the law on his side.

 

I regret the passing of fair and open debate thus in my book this must be a black mark against the club, trouble with that is that they don't read my book

[rubecula]

I am not one who goes along with conspiracy theories, but after reading some of the opinions in here I think that some folks do believe that there is something conpirational going on.

 

To be honest, and this is my own opinion, I think a lot of things are being unsaid simply in order to conduct business. I feel it will all be in the open when things are sorted.

 

That is not to say I agree with it though. Like most folks I would love to know exactly what is happening.

[Louis]

Liverpool Echo's taken on events:

 

Everton EGM ruling: Grounds to make a point

 

Sep 12 2008 by David Prentice, Liverpool Echo

 

EVERTON are the self-styled People’s Club.

 

But they clearly don’t believe in power to the people.

 

The Blues changed their articles of association this week. That’s a wordy way of saying that 10 per cent of the club’s total shareholding must now move for an EGM, rather than the previous five per cent.

 

It’s legal, it’s hard-nosed, but it’s hardly democratic.

 

“We are simply putting ourselves into line with our contemporaries,” said acting CEO Robert Elstone.

 

Which is fine. But Everton can’t claim to be different any more.

 

The decision to ballot fans on a ground move was a brave one – and still unique.

 

But results revealing 59.27% in favour, 40.73% against showed a sizeable minority were opposed to the idea.

 

Some of those shareholders want the opportunity to re-confirm that opposition.

 

“It was made clear to us that a section of our shareholders would continue to petition, every few weeks, for General Meetings until they won the right to hold a hand vote on the future of the Destination Kirkby project,” added Elstone.

 

Why is a hand vote so unpalatable?

 

These are the customers the Blues hope to entice to a new stadium, so why not let them display their dissatisfaction?

[Jimmy the blue]

Liverpool Echo's taken on events:

 

Whilst I'm in favour of Kirkby I'm also in favour of free speech, that article pretty well sums up my take on the sitiuation

[StevO]

wow, the echo not being biased towards the club for once! how did that get past the editors eyes?

 

i will say i was happy to read today that the club will be meeting KEIOC to discuss their plans for GP and to discuss transport issues (though they are saying transport issues are down to KBC but EFC must take some responsibility for transport if they actually want the fasn to get their) hopefully the meeting will go smoothly and something may come out of it. they also invited LCC to bring an offer to the table, but stated they will respond however possible under the exclusivity agreement, not sure what that means exactly. it seems they are finally ready to consider other options should kirkby fall through.

[Louis]

I'm very cautious over the club's intentions with regards to the meeting it to be honest. It could either be a genuine meeting or they want some filler for the public inquiry - as it stands Everton have done very little with regards to alternative sites and I imagine the government will be keen to know why.

 

Stadium plans took a further blow this morning when Liverpool One (a Destination Kirkby rival) announced they had to make some stores rent-free for an initiial period to get shops in.

[Jimmy the blue]

I'm very cautious over the club's intentions with regards to the meeting it to be honest. It could either be a genuine meeting or they want some filler for the public inquiry - as it stands Everton have done very little with regards to alternative sites and I imagine the government will be keen to know why.

 

Stadium plans took a further blow this morning when Liverpool One (a Destination Kirkby rival) announced they had to make some stores rent-free for an initiial period to get shops in.

 

Louis, you'll never get them to roll over mate so be happy with what you've got. If the Indian takes over you won't get that mate

[MikeO]

Louis, you'll never get them to roll over mate so be happy with what you've got. If the Indian takes over you won't get that mate

 

Point well made. Can't imagine Abu Dhabi United, Abramovic or Liverpool or Unted's Yanks agreeing to meet the fans .

 

And Louis, does the enquiry remit extend to the possibility of alternative sites? I'd have thought it would investigate purely and simply the merits of Kirkby ?

 

If you apply for planning permission for a house they say "yes" or "no," not "why haven't you thought of building it somewhere else?"

[Louis]

Jim/Mike, my problems is not with the club requesting another meeting - it is their intentions. Look at the link on the official site, the only two comments allowed to pass the moderators are anti-Goodison Redevelopment. They even had the cheek to big up their presentation as "compelling".

 

My understanding of it is Everton have said we need to move to Kirkby because:

 

*there will be £52million retail enabling money

*the club can't afford a new stadium on their own

*there were no alternative sites available in Liverpool

*Goodison Park can't be redeveloped.

 

It is up to the public to quash these claims to prove that that the material considerations put in place to support the stadium going ahead are nonsense with valid reasons.

[Jimmy the blue]

Jim/Mike, my problems is not with the club requesting another meeting - it is their intentions. Look at the link on the official site, the only two comments allowed to pass the moderators are anti-Goodison Redevelopment. They even had the cheek to big up their presentation as "compelling".

 

My understanding of it is Everton have said we need to move to Kirkby because:

 

*there will be £52million retail enabling money

*the club can't afford a new stadium on their own

*there were no alternative sites available in Liverpool

*Goodison Park can't be redeveloped.

 

It is up to the public to quash these claims to prove that that the material considerations placed on the stadium going ahead are nonsense with valid reasons.

 

 

Louis, and I mean this in the niciest possible way, mate but you are in danger of turning your campaign into a vendetta. You and your mates have won more than ground than you should have done, there comes a time to put the ball away. We all want the best for our team/club, others just want slightly different to you

[StevO]

exactly jim, we all want whats best for the club. is kirkby whats best for the club in the long term or just the easiest option? we cant live by the club crest of only the best is good enough, and at the same time submit planning for "a mid-level stadium".

 

LCC have made it crystal that they are willing to discuss staying in the city, architects have detailed plans showing the GP can be improved upon to the standard we need.

 

the only thing we all want jim, is for the club to look at the other options before going for a quick fix. this is the most important decision since 1892, we cant just take the cheapest option with out looking at what else we can do first.

 

if after LCC show a proposal, skemptons plans have been proven not usable, and kirkby is the only option left then im sure the fire will go out. but right now, while the lies KW gave us have come out into the open, kirkby can not be "deal of the century" anymore.

[MikeO]

You didn't answer my question Louis (which was a serious one....wasn't being sarcastic), does the enquiry take other options into account?

 

Also we keep coming back to this "mid-level" stadium argument, without any mention or reference point (as far as I've seen) as to how "mid-level" is defined.

 

What's "high-level?" Wembley certainly, Old Trafford and the Emirates yes but after that?

 

No point at all in us building a 75,000 capacity top of the range place because we'd not fill it.

 

If "mid-range" means "mid quality" that's another thing but size isn't eveything....as my wife always assures me .