Everton 2015 AGM - EFC Shareholders Association's 41 questions submitted for the Board

[chazzle_dazzle]

No. The only people who would have knowledge at this stage would be the Board. If they agree to recommend an offer (should one arise) or should the bidder wish to go public, then shareholders will be informed.

Don't forget we are a private company and minority shareholders have few rights.

Ah no probs - clears that up. Thought it was odd the shareholders wouldn't have an inkling!

 

[sageyefc]

North Korea is more transparent than these lot

 

[Azza]

No. The only people who would have knowledge at this stage would be the Board. If they agree to recommend an offer (should one arise) or should the bidder wish to go public, then shareholders will be informed.

Don't forget we are a private company and minority shareholders have few rights.

To not even statement a reason and just refuse is quite miserly even for their standards though.

 

[Chang Elephant]

Nope, there's definitely something wrong with that and the AGM. It was a farce.

But Due Diligence/period of exclusivity would explain this month

If they were refusing to answer in November 2015 for a particular reason, that's probably more likely to still be the reason and exclusivity a useful excuse

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

If the sale completes it's all moot anyway.

 

[The Esk]

To not even statement a reason and just refuse is quite miserly even for their standards though.

The CA may stop them from acknowledging any bid thus not being able to deny or confirm.

 

[BlueToff]

If they were refusing to answer in November 2015 for a particular reason, that's probably more likely to still be the reason and exclusivity a useful excuse

No mate, the November agm was a farce, I think everybody agrees on that.

However, if we really are in DD, which it seems we are, the club cannot officially comment without risking serious repercussions.

 

[BlueToff]

The CA may stop them from acknowledging any bid thus not being able to deny or confirm.

Exactly. Any statement may imply DD. It's a very blurry line

 

[Azza]

The CA may stop them from acknowledging any bid thus not being able to deny or confirm.

They don't have to acknowledge or deny anything though. Just say "The CEO is too busy."

 

[D410]

From the EFCSA website:

Since the latest Annual General Meeting the Association has initiated dialogue with the Club on numerous occasions via letter, email and telephone. We have attempted to find common ground with an underlying objective of getting answers to the questions that were asked in good faith by Shareholders.

The Club has refused to meet or engage with the Association.

The chronology of events can be viewed hereEFC 2015 AGM – CHRONOLOGY – FINAL and we hope that fair-minded people will respect that we have tried to engage with the Club on a timely basis and that we are being as transparent as we possibly can. However, it is very clear that for whatever reason the Club does not want to answer the questions. We at the Association do not accept that their reasons, as presented, are valid; we believe that our fellow shareholders on the Board, acting in the best interests of all Shareholders, should ensure that all these questions are answered.

http://www.efcsa.org/2016/01/29/efc-2015-agm-the-questions-update-2/

Well at least the EFCSA have taken the gloves off.

 

[ham2]

This board dont help themselves, the reply was very dissmisive, if and its a big if, the reason for it is due to DD then he could of just said unable to answer at this present time, the man is a PR nightmare or worse.

 

[mmmmsnouts]

This board dont help themselves, the reply was very dissmisive, if and its a big if, the reason for it is due to DD then he could of just said unable to answer at this present time, the man is a PR nightmare or worse.

But have the club stated DD is going on or was it only reported in the press? They may not be allowed to make any reference at all to what is happening.

Understand the frustration though. I've been on the other side of this with a company I used to work for and I hated not giving answers just as much as I would hate not getting any.

 

[The Esk]

But have the club stated DD is going on or was it only reported in the press? They may not be allowed to make any reference at all to what is happening.

Understand the frustration though. I've been on the other side of this with a company I used to work for and I hated not giving answers just as much as I would hate not getting any.

The club obviously don't help themselves especially with both fans and shareholders. However I suspect they cannot even acknowledge or deny DD or exclusivity, or even a reason for not answering questions as part of their confidentiality agreements.

 

[joey_macmo]

The club obviously don't help themselves especially with both fans and shareholders. However I suspect they cannot even acknowledge or deny DD or exclusivity, or even a reason for not answering questions as part of their confidentiality agreements.

That is almost certainly not the case as the club said they would answer the questions only 4 days before the AGM took place

 

[The Esk]

That is almost certainly not the case as the club said they would answer the questions only 4 days before the AGM took place

I think there are likely to be two separate issues here. This is all conjecture on my part.

1. At the AGM very few questions were answered which the Board and particularly the CEO were rightly criticised for. The issue here seems to be the content of the questions and the implications within them.

If you read my report of the evening you will see I stated it was very poorly handled and there can be no excuse nor justification in the manner they were dealt with.

2. The correspondence thereafter outlined in the time line provided by EFCSA.
It is here I suspect that the club has become bound by the terms of any CA that may be in place. It is also probable if such a CA is in place that they cannot explain the reasons for not providing answers.

Of course it could be that they've decided to ignore the shareholder association, but given the reported DD and exclusivity I suspect that is the reason.

I am not defending the board in saying this just providing what is to me a reasonable and most likely explanation of events.

If I am wrong in my assumptions then clearly the implications are severe and no doubt will be dealt with should the shareholders garner enough support for an EGM.