Shareholders Association force EGM

[The Esk]

Why don't the 33% shareholders all sell to one person making a new majority shareholder. Is that possible or even legal?

You could ask all "small holders" to place their shares in a trust where they retain beneficial ownership. The trust then appoints someone with sufficient business acumen and clout to represent them as a unified body. The trust could ask for Board representation. Whilst not legally obliged to do so it would be difficult to explain why the Board would not offer a seat to that person.

However collectively you would still be in the minority on the Board and most importantly as a shareholder.

It would create more accountability though.

 

[Duckling]

You could ask all "small holders" to place their shares in a trust where they retain beneficial ownership. The trust then appoints someone with sufficient business acumen and clout to represent them as a unified body. The trust could ask for Board representation. Whilst not legally obliged to do so it would be difficult to explain why the Board would not offer a seat to that person.

However collectively you would still be in the minority on the Board and most importantly as a shareholder.

It would create more accountability though.

Here's a breakdown of share ownership:

It's about 3 years out of date, but there have been no substantial changes since then.

At 5,766, the "Others" category is just under 16.5% of the club.

Edit: That 16.5% figure puts into perspective the SA's achievement in getting the EGM called - they had to get the backing of one out of every three of those independent shares which are distributed among about 1,300 different shareholders scattered around the world. Hat's off to 'em!

 

[Azzurri]

Here's a breakdown of share ownership:

It's about 3 years out of date, but there have been no substantial changes since then.

At 5,766, the "Others" category is just under 16.5% of the club.

Never heard of this Abercromby lid in my life. Poor fella never gets a mention.

 

[Duckling]

Never heard of this Abercromby lid in my life. Poor fella never gets a mention.

He's a former director and a mate of Bill's. They were on the board together under Johnson in the 90s.

 

[Steve Wigan]

True from a footballing perspective, not a business one. From that perspective we've been a wise investment oppurtunity since ~2007. Think about it mate, if our performance on the pitch and fanbase we're good assets as one would assume, why haven't we been sold yet?

Chico pointed out to me just then that they mean keeping it in line with safety regulations when they refer to infrastructure, so fair enough. But I don't think a Goodison Park in keeping with safety regulations is a good asset for someone to invest in.

Youre right in respect of keeping GP in line with safety regulations, and this is neccesary. Its really 'treading water' while the 'big opportunity' for a ground move or redevelopment takes place. With the present limited revenue(limited by facilities, etc) even inluding the new tv money, thats about all that can be done. People sometimes want it both ways...a new ground or improved GP, and spen a fortune on players. There has to be a happy medium until,if, the billionaire comes along. But as the 6th best club in the top league in the world, the selling price is fair. The problem is the additional investment that a buyer would need to make...ground, players, etc.

 

[davek]

Youre right in respect of keeping GP in line with safety regulations, and this is neccesary. Its really 'treading water' while the 'big opportunity' for a ground move or redevelopment takes place. With the present limited revenue(limited by facilities, etc) even inluding the new tv money, thats about all that can be done. People sometimes want it both ways...a new ground or improved GP, and spen a fortune on players. There has to be a happy medium until,if, the billionaire comes along. But as the 6th best club in the top league in the world, the selling price is fair. The problem is the additional investment that a buyer would need to make...ground, players, etc.

...debt.

 

[davek]

You could ask all "small holders" to place their shares in a trust where they retain beneficial ownership. The trust then appoints someone with sufficient business acumen and clout to represent them as a unified body. The trust could ask for Board representation. Whilst not legally obliged to do so it would be difficult to explain why the Board would not offer a seat to that person.

However collectively you would still be in the minority on the Board and most importantly as a shareholder.

It would create more accountability though.

I think from the couple of prompts the board received on greater fan involvement in the finances of the club you could see how lukewarm reaction they continue to give on the matter. They've never wanted that complication of pulling the fans close in that respect for the obvious reasons that it'd involve either their share ownership diluted (and therefore future profit) or (under your plan) outsiders to their Omerta having access to sensitive info (and, in any case, trusts have been attempted at least a couple of times to my knowledge at EFC and never got off the ground...in short, it's a complete non-starter).

 

[Bluesnapper]

Then why not just ban proxy's and keep AGM'S ?

Because its an absolute right of a shareholder to have someone else, a proxy, to represent them.

 

[paultheblue]

Here's a breakdown of share ownership:

It's about 3 years out of date, but there have been no substantial changes since then.

At 5,766, the "Others" category is just under 16.5% of the club.

Edit: That 16.5% figure puts into perspective the SA's achievement in getting the EGM called - they had to get the backing of one out of every three of those independent shares which are distributed among about 1,300 different shareholders scattered around the world. Hat's off to 'em!

So we need the rest to break ranks barring Kenwright ( Mr Blue) and Earl (Mr Green).

 

[Bluesnapper]

Our debt is one of the lower in the Premier League.

The debt has increased 24% in the last five years.

 

[westyuk1]

The debt has increased 24% in the last five years.

Its a disgrace. God knows what state the club's finances will be when the masses finally force the lying ****s out.

 

[D410]

Well done to the minority shareholders for getting the AGM back on..lets not forget that

I can sum up the boards efforts last night as " We will carry on regardless" , suntan,s bob presenation had the depth of postage stamp and now it,s clear that the owners have no intrest in putting money into the club. So they wait to mug someone off who is stupid enough to make them a wedge for nothing.

New Ground...my arse...they can look at a 100 plots but as they have no money and are not willing to invest we will stagnate in our infrastructure.

We are held prisoner as a club to the very people who claim to love this club but won,t budge untill they are made very rich men before they hand over the keys.

 

[By god I'm blue]

The problem that Elstone and Kenwright face with anything that they said last night, is that people have been stung in the past believing them, as they have both previously proven to be complete liars.

 

[Steve Wigan]

...debt.

Well well..its Mr.Agenda again(going to neg me again, are ,child?. Our debt is one of the smallest in the Prem, and is repaid in accordance with the terms, with no defaults.

 

[By god I'm blue]

Well well..its Mr.Agenda again(going to neg me again, are ,child?. Our debt is one of the smallest in the Prem, and is repaid in accordance with the terms, with no defaults.

You can keep repeating the same mantra, believing it to be the most important factor as your own way of backing this board.

However, as pointed out to you numerous times over the years.
1. Debt has increased
2. Assets have been stripped.
3. We have at times operated with one of the smallest squads in the league.
4. Not one of them has invested a penny into the football club.

Ignoring those facts just to make the same point just makes you look like you have an agenda.