pax Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Find your whole approach tiresome, confrontational and pedantic. You are losing whatever credibility you have with each and every post. You want hard facts and make statements such as "Essien 3 times better at everything than felliani" - sorry but expect Practise what you preach. For the record the majority of people on this forum disagree on many topics which is great, the manner in which you want hard facts when faced with clear issues facing the club which can be attributed to the chairman and the board is plain daft. You clearly can't see that the asset stripped state of our club has happened under Bill and Co's reign. Three training grounds sold, failed investment opportunities, two failed stadium moves - one of which was voted against, the other was the biggest missed opportunity in the clubs history. You talk about the need for investment? Well that search has been ongoing 24/7 for the past 11 years - bit of a failure there me thinks. Is the club for sale? certainly wouldn't do any harm to know for how much? considering the only assets we have are the playing staff the board can't be expecting a massive amount or is that the problem? as steveo says, welcome to the forum and all that jazz, but yep pipe down a little - we're all friends here I couldn't give a monkeys what you think of me or how you ignorantly describe my posting. I also don't give a monkeys if you think i'm credible or not. I don't care one jot, I'm not here for people like you to like me. If you want me to list how i think you post then just ask. Asset stripped? It's very clear you don't even know what that means. Is the club for sale. Yes. Does anyone want to buy it? No. I have stated this time and time again, but i feel i am going to have to repeat myself. What part of no one wants to buy Everton do you not understand? It's none of our business how much the club is far sale for and it makes absolutely no difference what so ever. Again, something i have already said, if someone really wanted to buy Everton and the price was too high etc they could easily use the media to force Kenwrights hand. It would be as easy as taking candy from a baby. That has not happened. I'm not going to pipe down at all, maybe you should heed your own advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 People are interested in buying the club. This is from Kenwright himself: "I am spending 24 hours a day trying to raise finance for this club. I had a meeting today, three yesterday, all involving money that would dilute my shareholding - but I'm not interested in that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 I couldn't give a monkeys what you think of me or how you ignorantly describe my posting. I also don't give a monkeys if you think i'm credible or not. I don't care one jot, I'm not here for people like you to like me. If you want me to list how i think you post then just ask. Asset stripped? It's very clear you don't even know what that means. Is the club for sale. Yes. Does anyone want to buy it? No. I have stated this time and time again, but i feel i am going to have to repeat myself. What part of no one wants to buy Everton do you not understand? It's none of our business how much the club is far sale for and it makes absolutely no difference what so ever. Again, something i have already said, if someone really wanted to buy Everton and the price was too high etc they could easily use the media to force Kenwrights hand. It would be as easy as taking candy from a baby. That has not happened. I'm not going to pipe down at all, maybe you should heed your own advice. How do you know this? present the facts not propaganda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romey 1878 Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 People are interested in buying the club. This is from Kenwright himself: "I am spending 24 hours a day trying to raise finance for this club. I had a meeting today, three yesterday, all involving money that would dilute my shareholding - but I'm not interested in that." Does he say why he's not interested in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Pax - I'd be interest to know what you think are not facts. Everton accounts are published on Companies House website so you can see them there, as are loans, their amounts, their rates and length of term. Accountants can get very creative with accounts that get published and there are plenty of ways to influence the way people not connected with the running of the club (or any company) read the accounts. The things that are not facts is nearly every single thing the anti Kenwright brigade publish. They don't seem to realise that the less people like them know, the better for our football club. I mean exactly how helpful would be it be allowing people who claim Everton has been asset stripped under Kenwright access to serious financial information about the football club. You don't give monkeys keys to their cages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 How do you know this? present the facts not propaganda. How do i know the club is for sale? Bill Kenwright and Keith Harris have publicity stated it's for sale. The owner of the club and the man charged with selling it have confirmed it's for sale. Can you explain to me what was propaganda in my post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 How do i know the club is for sale? Bill Kenwright and Keith Harris have publicity stated it's for sale. The owner of the club and the man charged with selling it have confirmed it's for sale. Can you explain to me what was propaganda in my post? Put it this way, if kenwright told me the weather was 100 degrees, I would put a woolly jumper on. Watch this space, it's ringfenced, will be in the bank tomorrow... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) Put it this way, if kenwright told me the weather was 100 degrees, I would put a woolly jumper on. Watch this space, it's ringfenced, will be in the bank tomorrow... Well that's because you let speculation, the fantasy and conspiracy theories define your opinion. Can you confirm what was propaganda in my my post? Edited July 11, 2011 by pax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Dispatches have a 'How to buy a football club' investigation on BBC soon. Should be interesting, maybe we'll seem some examples of who Kenwright could have sold to Can the conspiracy theorists please watch and give their opinions :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Well that's because you let speculation, the fantasy and conspiracy theories define your opinion. Can you confirm what was propaganda in my my post? You seem so obsessed that everything negative about bill is propaganda conjecture speculation or fiction. However you can apply the same to anything positive about him. Hence my point. Is the failure of kings dock speculation, did he not get quoted as saying the ntl money would be in the bank? Did he not introduce the complete bull that was Chris Samuelson and the fortress fund - or is that fantasy??? Tell me did those events happen under his watch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 It is worth noting after saying we should not have access to financial information, that people can buy shares in the club, I myself only have one but I do own part of the club, I am entitled to that information. Also, saying we do not need to know how much the club is for sale for, buyers also need to know this. It could be helpful in the sale of the club and give shareholders the chance to see what the club value the shares at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 The Times' Oliver Kay: I'm well versed with Evertonian frustrations/concerns, even more so after reading them documented so thorougly. Looking at it dispassionately and objectively, I also feel Evertonians should be careful what they wish for - or at least how desperately they wish for it. As a journalist, I always find something refreshingly wholesome about the 21st-century Everton. The club has still got heart and still got soul. More resources - and more hope and positive energy - are definitely needed, but grass isn't always greener under new ownership. For what it's worth, I wrote a column on Kenwright etc here http://thetim.es/qncW0l a few months ago (and yes that link is behind paywall - sorry). In short, I view Bill Kenwright as David Moores. And by far Moores's biggest sin at LFC was selling in a blind panic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafnia Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 The Times' Oliver Kay: 11 years wouldn't be classed as a blind panic, London has won and built an Olympic games in the time he's been supposedly selling the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted July 11, 2011 Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 Harry Potter has been and gone too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duncanmckenzieismagic Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 The Times' Oliver Kay: That pretty much sums up what I feel about the entire saga Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 You seem so obsessed that everything negative about bill is propaganda conjecture speculation or fiction. However you can apply the same to anything positive about him. Hence my point. Is the failure of kings dock speculation, did he not get quoted as saying the ntl money would be in the bank? Did he not introduce the complete bull that was Chris Samuelson and the fortress fund - or is that fantasy??? Tell me did those events happen under his watch? What positive things about BK have i stated ? I have never stated the Kings Dock wasn't a failure. What i am stating is that i don't know the details of why it was a failure, so therefore blaming someone would seem beyond stupid and absolutely infantile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 It is worth noting after saying we should not have access to financial information, that people can buy shares in the club, I myself only have one but I do own part of the club, I am entitled to that information. Also, saying we do not need to know how much the club is for sale for, buyers also need to know this. It could be helpful in the sale of the club and give shareholders the chance to see what the club value the shares at. Well if you apply the same sort of logic then i own % of some of the biggest companies in the world. You think Apple or HSBC are going to consult me or let me have the in's and out's of their finances ? I'm pretty sure anyone who contacts Everton with a view to buying the club, after they have proved they are not tyre kickers will be given all the information they need. Problem for this type of 'buyer' is that thus far our due diligence has proven a big problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 11 years wouldn't be classed as a blind panic, London has won and built an Olympic games in the time he's been supposedly selling the club. What is it you don't understand about there being no one who wants to buy Everton? An investment that would never provide a return Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 The Times' Oliver Kay: Absolutely 100% spot on. Some of our so called 'fans' would do themselves a favor reading that and actually understanding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Well if you apply the same sort of logic then i own % of some of the biggest companies in the world. You think Apple or HSBC are going to consult me or let me have the in's and out's of their finances ? HSBC also publish their accounts, so yes, they do let you have the ins and outs of their finances. As do Everton. See Louis post above about them being published by companies house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) HSBC also publish their accounts, so yes, they do let you have the ins and outs of their finances. As do Everton. See Louis post above about them being published by companies house. Oh dear lord These are PUBLISHED accounts. If you do not know what that means or how companies declare their accounts then i can't help you. I also can't help you if you think these published accounts tell a perfectly accurate story of how the companies are financially run. Edited July 12, 2011 by pax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Oh dear lord These are PUBLISHED accounts. If you do not know what that means or how companies declare their accounts then i can't help you. I also can't help you if you think these published accounts tell a perfectly accurate story of how the companies are financially run. I don't understand accounting. Are you saying that there is a different set of accounts to the published ones which do tell an accurate story? Like I said I'm ignorant in these matters but that sounds illegal to me . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I don't understand accounting. Are you saying that there is a different set of accounts to the published ones which do tell an accurate story? Like I said I'm ignorant in these matters but that sounds illegal to me . Company executives and accountants can be very creative when they publish their accounts. They simply do not portray things as they would for internal accounts. If they did, rivals and competitors would be able to gain a huge amount of information. So they get creative. Nothing illegal about it at all if it's done right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeO Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Company executives and accountants can be very creative when they publish their accounts. They simply do not portray things as they would for internal accounts. If they did, rivals and competitors would be able to gain a huge amount of information. So they get creative. Nothing illegal about it at all if it's done right. But there'd be fairly serious repercussions if any "creativity" was picked up by the auditors wouldn't there? Some might even go so far as to suggest BK was less than honest (not a view I share as most here well know)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Louis Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Yeah, Deloitte and Touche would be in trouble for allowing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) from what i understand, and please bare in mind ive no idea on finances, companies can play with numbers quite easily and legitimately. For example for tax purposes, a company could sell to itself in 1 country to another, then sell back to itself at a different price, allowing more money to stay within the company in 1 specific tax haven of a country. Then theres ways of playing with figures by declaring different budgets to different areas which doesnt affect always shares. Cant say I understand how its done but i know its done and its all legal. Edited July 12, 2011 by Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 But there'd be fairly serious repercussions if any "creativity" was picked up by the auditors wouldn't there? Some might even go so far as to suggest BK was less than honest (not a view I share as most here well know)! When i say 'creative' , i certainly don't mean doing anything illegal or even remotely illegal. I'm not saying that at all. You can file certain financial aspects of your business under many different categories within a set of accounts. As a basic example, if i had spent £10 million on buying up some property to expand my supermarket chain, in my personal accounts i would have that marked down as 'Property Acquisition', however for accounts that will be filed at companies house, that are public, i would mark that down as 'Asset Acquisition' or even hide it simply in 'expenditure'. It takes the detail and the specifics out of the published accounts without doing anything even remotely illegal or dodgy. Good accountants can make a set of published accounts pretty worthless to anyone who reads them apart from expenditure, income and profit + loss. They remove all sensitive details and simply provide figures which are pretty meaningless without those details and specifics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Yeah, Deloitte and Touche would be in trouble for allowing it. They'd be in trouble for allowing what ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pax Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 from what i understand, and please bare in mind ive no idea on finances, companies can play with numbers quite easily and legitimately. For example for tax purposes, a company could sell to itself in 1 country to another, then sell back to itself at a different price, allowing more money to stay within the company in 1 specific tax haven of a country. Then theres ways of playing with figures by declaring different budgets to different areas which doesnt affect always shares. Cant say I understand how its done but i know its done and its all legal. Absolutely. Your getting into quite complex stuff now, but your are absolutely spot on. Nothing illegal about any of it. This is where accountants are able to get rich, by saving their rich clients fortunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevO Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) Oh dear lord These are PUBLISHED accounts. If you do not know what that means or how companies declare their accounts then i can't help you. I also can't help you if you think these published accounts tell a perfectly accurate story of how the companies are financially run. Haha your right mate, you can't help me! I hope someone else here on TT will be kind hearted enough to give me a helping hand! But everything listed in your last few posts still leaves the same bottom line on the accounts. Revenue minus costs will always equal profit, your just renaming subsections which can be unravelled by an equally competent accountant anyway. Edited July 12, 2011 by StevO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts