Everton General Meeting (26 June 2013) - Liverpool Philharmonic Hall

[Romey 1878]

 

 

 

As the most recent Articles of Association (linked by Louis) were passed in 2000 and "ammended by special resolution" in 2008 it looks like it was Bill and the board that added the "no wage" rule themselves....so not hot air. They're saying they'll not take a wage and also, as it stands, it stops future directors from taking one.

 

Though presumably new owners could come up with their own ammendments.

 

 

Fair enough but it's still nothing to shout about is it? They put nothing into the club so why should they take anything out of it?

[Romey 1878]

Not the case Av, the administration of our club is rightly under the microscope, when they consistently come out with the same shite years after they should have had it addressed, you know we are going no where.

 

Every answer was a defence to a question they didn't want to hear, if they had come about and said "these are our issues, this is what we are doing about it" then great. But no, they expect the fans yet again to swallow the same old shite, commercially we have a bunch of half wits running the show.

 

 

Loved them throwing out that we've made enquiries for two players like that's supposed to make people forget the real issues.

 

I was interested to hear about this brilliant site LCC have found for us close to Goodison that Kenwright says will be better than a groundshare with the shite. But, alas, it was followed up with that it'll depending on the funding model - i.e. if we can't get someone to pay for it for us then it ain't happening.

[rubecula]

In a SSN interview just shown on TV Bill Kenwright has said a groundshare is still a viable option if Liverpool FC will sit at the table and talk.

 

He also said that the city council has been exceedingly helpful over recent months and together Everton and the Council are looking at a "good" site for relocation.

 

However, Robert Elstone also in the same report cautioned that in the current climate (financiall) it will be very difficult to build a new stadium, but that the club are looking very hard at doing so.

[StevO]

 

Why so much negativity,after all these years inhouse fighting I still haven't got a clue what the blue unions agenda is,forever bickering but no solutions.

 

Its not their job to come up with solutions. They are asking the people who run the club to do a better job, to at least be at the standard of our peers on a commercial level. When Norwich and Sunderland can get bigger deals than us, someone needs to be asking how and why!

 

 

So how are we supposed to pay for it ?

To me the only chance we have is champions league qualification so let's just get on with it and support the team,stop all the fighting.

 

Got to be honest Patto, that comment pissed me right off. Does questioning the board automatically stop people from supporting the team? I support the team 100%, i'm excited about what Martinez will do and i'm positive about the season coming up. But I have no time for the fellas on the board, I dont accept their excuses (sometimes they dont even offer that). I can be critical of the club and support the team at the same time.

Edited June 27, 2013 by StevO

[Romey 1878]

So how are we supposed to pay for it ?

To me the only chance we have is champions league qualification so let's just get on with it and support the team,stop all the fighting.

 

 

Come on, ffs, if you want something do you expect someone else to buy it for you?

 

And having a problem with the clowns at board level and supporting the team are two completely separate issues, don't mix them up.

[StevO]

In a SSN interview just shown on TV Bill Kenwright has said a groundshare is still a viable option if Liverpool FC will sit at the table and talk.

 

He also said that the city council has been exceedingly helpful over recent months and together Everton and the Council are looking at a "good" site for relocation.

 

However, Robert Elstone also in the same report cautioned that in the current climate (financiall) it will be very difficult to build a new stadium, but that the club are looking very hard at doing so.

 

 

I wonder if the council would consider building a stadium, taking Goodison Park off the club/bank, and then rent the stadium back to the club? Could bring good money into the council for the forseeable future, and get Everton the stadium they need. In a similar way to Finch Farm? And not a million miles away from Manchester CC did with City and Eastlands?

Edited June 27, 2013 by StevO

[Romey 1878]

I wonder if the council would consider building a stadium, taking Goodison Park off the club/bank, and then rent the stadium back to the club? Could bring good money into the council for the forseeable future, and get Everton the stadium they need. In a similar way to Finch Farm? And not a million miles away from Manchester CC did with City and Eastlands?

 

 

Would the council be able to justify spunking £150millionish right now even if it would benefit in the long run?

[StevO]

 

 

Would the council be able to justify spunking £150millionish right now even if it would benefit in the long run?

 

They probably couldn't to be honest Mark.

But if they got a percentage of the gate, season ticket sales and corporate sales, plus rent, after 15 years or so it could probably be all profit. Manchester Council did well out of Eastlands, but they had commonwealth games money to build it, then they sold it to the club after the take over. Win win all round. Just a pipe dream.

 

I still like my idea of using the littlewoods building. Granchester could make that happen and rent it to the club for a tidy profit without even putting a dent in his pocket money. Shame he isnt interested in football.

[Matt]

 

Its not their job to come up with solutions. They are asking the people who run the club to do a better job, to at least be at the standard of our peers on a commercial level. When Norwich and Sunderland can get bigger deals than us, someone needs to be asking how and why!

 

This irritates me no end. If you're going to complain about something not going the way you want it, at least be prepared to offer advise or help, no matter how small or maybe irrelevant, rather than stomping around like a spoiled child who's not happy with things.

 

They got the attention they wanted but did nothing with it. "we want change!" - propose it. Personally, I want to win the lottery. I don't go around complaining, I buy a ticket.

[Lowensda]

Didn't peel holdings offer to build a stadium at one point in aintree.

 

Something like that.

[Hafnia]

The scary thing is that many people who aren't involved with the club have more of an idea as to what should be done. Look at KEIOC, they completely discredited the flawed Kirby model that the club wasted millions on trying to make happen! The people sat within that board room are a bunch of dinosaurs with no place in the future of our club.

 

They throw out coments like "not taking a salary is an investement" - i'll throw out a challenge... "Sell your shares for what you paid for them or +10%, on the basis that the buyer has to match that price in investing into the club" The added investment will be held in the name of the club and can't be sold and realised as a profit. So in other words only 50% of the club could ever be sold "Everton" would hold the other half.

[SimonButtle]

 

I believe Dave Kelly is a shareholder, and that he won't be allowed. But I don't have proof.

Dave Kelly is a fairly regular poster on GOT, and you are correct in saying that he is a shareholder from what i read a few days ago, but he didn't seem that bothered about missing the meeting simply because of it being the same old story. I will try and find the post that explained his side of the meeting thing.

[Louis]

Dave Kelly is a fairly regular poster on GOT

They're different people.

 

I found it Keith Wyness' comment on twitter interesting "very fair questions, but I sensed things were just about to become meaningful [before Q&A session ended]". https://twitter.com/retsub12/status/350023808771555328

[SimonButtle]

They're different people.

 

I found it Keith Wyness' comment on twitter interesting "very fair questions, but I sensed things were just about to become meaningful [before Q&A session ended]". https://twitter.com/retsub12/status/350023808771555328

Ahh ok then, cheers for the correction Louis, that's set me straight on a few things now

[duncanmckenzieismagic]

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/2013/06/27/commercial-clarity

[Matt]

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/2013/06/27/commercial-clarity

some of it is encouraging, a lot of it irked me, least of all the excuses from the off for looking tired....

 

“We are often criticised on commercial performance and if you look at the plain numbers as they appear on the annual report and account, they are what they are. That is our commercial turnover. But if you do want to compare that to some of the other clubs around us then it is only fair that you compare apples with apples,” he said.

 

Everton are one of only two clubs in the Premier League – the other being Manchester United – to outsource its retail operation. As a result, the CEO explains it is unfair to compare like-for-like with the accounts of other Premier League clubs in that area.

ok, lets compare apples with apples. Even though we arent at the same level of fame as Utd, their retail is GLOBAL. You can buy Utd merchandise around the world, without really having to search. We have 2 shops in the city where the club is based (where the vast majority have already declared their allegiance (i.e. no new market to expand into)) and a website which charges a lot for shipping. All this despite having massive pull in Australia (through Cahill), USA (through Howard and Donovan) and apparently the far East (with this new TV show and Chang).

 

He continued: “All those other clubs run their own shops and run their own online retailing, therefore their turnover is different to ours in its makeup. What we have done is spoken to our auditors Deloitte who provided us with an estimate of how much retail turnover ought to be reflected in our accounts in order to compare them to the other [clubs].

 

“When you do that, we hover between seventh and eighth best in the Premier League in terms of our commercial operation, which is good. It’s an area we want to improve and drive forward. Cumulatively over a ten-year period our income has been the seventh best in the Premier League. It would have made us the 23rd richest club in the world in 2012, so it’s nowhere near as bad as people think. We are holding our own commercially.”

Different as in more profitable? Im not going to analysing the commercial income of each team, cant be arsed, it just seemed like a deflective statement. Also, why ask Deloitte to check and compare, if youre saying compare like with like?

 

On the plus side, it is a guaranteed income, which considering the economy (and recent kit and badge designs) is probably a good thing. If only it wasnt 10 years long....

 

He added: “The Kitbag and Nike [deals] take away a phenomenal amount of risk from our business. The retail sector is still struggling and lots of retailers are going out of business. I suspect a lot of football clubs are not retailing very well and not making much money out of it. We’ve got an arrangement with a good retail partner that isolates us from all that risk and all that downside. It gives us a really nice, healthy profit.

 

“But we also want to push on for more – of course we do – and within that commercial [sector] there are two or three really good deals.

as above for the most part, but also fair play for acknowledging that they need to do better. All other times its come across as if theyre happy where they are.

 

“The Chang deal is a great deal – we are going into the 10th year and we are hoping to extend it. Every time we have extended it we have managed to increase the value. Chang are really happy with what we give them and a lot of clubs within the Premier League would envy that long-term relationship, stability and the value of that deal.

no, not it isnt. It isnt even a good deal.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/news/article-2177186/Premier-League-shirt-sponsor-deals-rise-147m.html

 

Ok, its from the Daily Fail and a year old but still accurate. Our deal, in its 3 cycle (initial deal + 2 extensions, I think) brings in 4m a year. Sunderland signed a deal that is 5 times that a year!!!!!

 

“Stubhub, our secondary ticketing partner, [provide] a fantastic commercial deal that we did really well on in order to squeeze a lot of value from it. We have got the Football Dream which is a really exciting project out in China. It’s a reality television show and we are getting good cash from doing that with our partner over there. There’s the lucrative pre-season tour to the United States against some fantastic high-profile opposition.

I would be interested to know the expected revenue. The word "lucrative" is used too often and Im sceptical.

 

 

 

He was also pleased to clarify misconceptions regarding the Club’s other operating costs and the rental situation with Finch Farm.

 

He added: “Other operating costs are going to be less in 2013/14 than they were in 2008/09. And any business which has managed to slice £700,000 out of its overhead base probably does deserve some credit.

 

“Part of that comes from a big saving in our Finch Farm rent – that was another [agreement] that has been badly reported in the past couple of weeks. It’s a fantastic deal for the Club and a deal that the council were really pleased to do and support us with. It was a deal that the previous owner of the site wanted to do and our rent is now a third less. It was a big number so it’s a third of a big saving, without disclosing any of the commercial issues in it.”

 

 

a part of the saving is the recent deal with Finch Farm, where a nice 30% shaved off of the 1.5m a year rent - 500k. This means, without that very recent development, youve managed to scrape off 200k in 5 years. Every penny helps but dont try and disguise it as anything else but a meagre savings.

 

Finally, something that wasnt documented but our CEO mentions twice in quick succession: Everton is open, transparent and ready to engage with its fans... Give me a break. Opened the doors for an AGM have you? As much as I appreciate their professionalism and privacy over transfer deals, their communication with fans is rubbish.

[StevO]

But Matt, how could someone outside of the club negotiate with a kit supplier and sponsor?

 

Quite didn't work for some reason. And I agree with pretty much all of your last post.

Edited June 28, 2013 by StevO

[Hafnia]

Its about talent - we simply do not have the right corporate minded talent at our club, very much reactive and behind other clubs. We used to be pioneers, now we are very slow moving sheep. Its run like a Lewis's big name local comunity department store, whilst Man United is being run like Marks & Spencer. We know what happened to Lewis's

[Matt]

But Matt, how could someone outside of the club negotiate with a kit supplier and sponsor?

 

Quite didn't work for some reason. And I agree with pretty much all of your last post.

not sure what youre referring to here, the "come with suggestions" post I made?

[StevO]

Yep. I think it's possible to criticise without a solution.

Probably a poor example, but my boss will let me know if my department isn't doing well enough. He will tell me to improve as the figures will speak for themselves, but as he doesn't know how to do my job he can't give me the solution himself, I'm paid to find the solution.

 

The shareholders who aren't happy with the job the executives of the club are doing they don't necessarily have to give a solution. They won't be able to negotiate with kitbag and Chang for better deals as they are not in the position to do so.

 

I hope that makes sense.

[Matt]

Yep. I think it's possible to criticise without a solution.

Probably a poor example, but my boss will let me know if my department isn't doing well enough. He will tell me to improve as the figures will speak for themselves, but as he doesn't know how to do my job he can't give me the solution himself, I'm paid to find the solution.

 

The shareholders who aren't happy with the job the executives of the club are doing they don't necessarily have to give a solution. They won't be able to negotiate with kitbag and Chang for better deals as they are not in the position to do so.

 

I hope that makes sense.

No offence, but if your boss doesnt know your job, he shouldnt be your boss. He may not know the nitty gritty details, but he should be able to propose strategies to improve.

 

Im not saying the BU should negotiate with Kitbag or Chang, Im saying they should come up with their own proposals.

[StevO]

 

Yep. I think it's possible to criticise without a solution.

 

Probably a poor example, but my boss will let me know if my department isn't doing well enough. He will tell me to improve as the figures will speak for themselves, but as he doesn't know how to do my job he can't give me the solution himself, I'm paid to find the solution.

 

 

The shareholders who aren't happy with the job the executives of the club are doing they don't necessarily have to give a solution. They won't be able to negotiate with kitbag and Chang for better deals as they are not in the position to do so.

 

 

I hope that makes sense.

 

 

No offence, but if your boss doesnt know your job, he shouldnt be your boss. He may not know the nitty gritty details, but he should be able to propose strategies to improve.

 

Im not saying the BU should negotiate with Kitbag or Chang, Im saying they should come up with their own proposals.

 

In my work there are four different areas, it's normal that the boss will only know one of the four areas, the one they have worked in on their way up. They tend to have very little knowledge of the other three areas. I've worked for four different firms with seven different GM's in my sector, only one GM has know the whole business, and that was because he was the outright owner of the company.

 

But how could the BU propose getting a better deal or more lucrative sponsorship deal? They can't approach other companies and ask them to come and sponsor Everton for more money than Chang currently pay. I don't see how they could come up with any proposal to improve the things they are critical of.

[Matt]

In my work there are four different areas, it's normal that the boss will only know one of the four areas, the one they have worked in on their way up. They tend to have very little knowledge of the other three areas. I've worked for four different firms with seven different GM's in my sector, only one GM has know the whole business, and that was because he was the outright owner of the company.

 

But how could the BU propose getting a better deal or more lucrative sponsorship deal? They can't approach other companies and ask them to come and sponsor Everton for more money than Chang currently pay. I don't see how they could come up with any proposal to improve the things they are critical of.

im not saying approach other companies though, or do the clubs work for them. Im saying be constructive and have advice to offer. KEIOC did it (to no avail), which is why I had a bit of respect for them. They wanted change and presented options. The BU moaned and offered nothing.

[StevO]

It's the same guys, just with a few more thrown in. But I get your point.

[Guest John Burns]

At this meeting, Billright said he had a few stadium sites lined up. Anyone know where they are and any movement?