Bill Kenwright

[Neiler]

You haven't given reasons.... you mentioned a tiny reversed mortgage for a true state of the art stadium in an amazing location. Which was only a part of our contribution and trivial. You said we would be beholden to other stakeholders holders when we were infact comfortably the biggest single stake holder. All matchday income was going to be ours..... again contrary to what you've said. So, we've effectively thrown away nearly 2 decades of increased income streams and raised status. We would've literally seized the centre ground of our who city region and elevated our club in an era when LFC only had 45k seats and 32 boxes. All in all we shot ourselves in the foot and have never recovered (so far)

.

I gave my reasons at the start of my post ,you just disagreed with them, I don’t agree or accept your analysis or opinion. That’s fine. We won’t agree and I rarely do circular arguments when it’s just a foundation for dogma, no personal offence intended honestly.

It’s all out there lads are well able to look into themselves, we lived through and have our opposing takes. But I’d encourage anyone to look into it, as the scope of the narrative has become an urban myth at this stage and facts have gotten lost.

Brief time line here to assist lads to find more detail on the process and dynamics of the deal, so the6 can make their mind up, like I said great stadium, poxy deal would be my take.

New Stadium | Kings Dock

www.toffeeweb.com

 

[Woolverhampton_Blue]

I’m the hope a % of Evertonians stop acting like Geordies.

Love your work winding up Geordies and Hammers.

The screen shots showing they follow loads of filth is particularly wicked. Bravo.

 

[chicoazul]

Love your work winding up Geordies and Hammers.

The screen shots showing they follow loads of filth is particularly wicked. Bravo.

I’m honestly still reeling at that. He called me a nonce so I had a little look and can honestly say I was fist pumping when I seen this. He tried to ride it out, but then alas, he fall on his sword after about 50 blues called him a predator. RIP bonny lad

 

[Tom Hughes]

.

I gave my reasons at the start of my post ,you just disagreed with them, I don’t agree or accept your analysis or opinion. That’s fine. We won’t agree and I rarely do circular arguments when it’s just a foundation for dogma, no personal offence intended honestly.

It’s all out there lads are well able to look into themselves, we lived through and have our opposing takes. But I’d encourage anyone to look into it, as the scope of the narrative has become an urban myth at this stage and facts have gotten lost.

Brief time line here to assist lads to find more detail on the process and dynamics of the deal, so the6 can make their mind up, like I said great stadium, poxy deal would be my take.

New Stadium | Kings Dock

www.toffeeweb.com

It's a circular argument because you still haven't given any real reasons apart from reservations regarding a reverse mortgage (an inhouse arrangement via one of our own directors). Tbh I was going to post that article myself.... it and several other related docs have been around for years. As were the other stake holders docs. It dispels several of your claims/reasons regarding the ownership issues, finances and revenue streams. The reverse morgage was for a portion of our outstanding contribution which BK had said was ringfenced for years. It was offered by one of our major shareholders and from within the board. We would've received all of our matchday income contrary to your claims and as the same director was also the owner of SFX we would've had a finger in that pie too..... We weren't the minority stake holder, we were comfortably the largest stakeholder of essentially a non-transferable asset. It was win win for the club for a tiny fraction of the cost that the Emirates stadium was for Arsenal. The deal of the century they said.

The reverse mortgage may well have exposed the club's true ownership structure and benefitted the Gregs who had funded BKs take over.... the ensuing power struggle saw them displaced and BKs new pals put in place. With the stadium project left in tatters and several partners completely dumbfounded at our failure to secure such a paltry amount.

 

[canuckblue]

Bill, I'm sorry. I'm sorry you're still hanging around this club like a sour fart or a turd that won't flush.

 

[Neiler]

It's a circular argument because you still haven't given any real reasons apart from reservations regarding a reverse mortgage (an inhouse arrangement via one of our own directors). Tbh I was going to post that article myself.... it and several other related docs have been around for years. As were the other stake holders docs. It dispels several of your claims/reasons regarding the ownership issues, finances and revenue streams. The reverse morgage was for a portion of our outstanding contribution which BK had said was ringfenced for years. It was offered by one of our major shareholders and from within the board. We would've received all of our matchday income contrary to your claims and as the same director was also the owner of SFX we would've had a finger in that pie too..... We weren't the minority stake holder, we were comfortably the largest stakeholder of essentially a non-transferable asset. It was win win for the club for a tiny fraction of the cost that the Emirates stadium was for Arsenal. The deal of the century they said.

The reverse mortgage may well have exposed the club's true ownership structure and benefitted the Gregs who had funded BKs take over.... the ensuing power struggle saw them displaced and BKs new pals put in place. With the stadium project left in tatters and several partners completely dumbfounded at our failure to secure such a paltry amount.

Mate your going mad for a soap box for conspiracy and dogma, I’m not going to give, you’ve some mad vendetta looking at your posting history, given you just post about Bill, I’m not feeding into it to enable.

I don’t agree with you analysis, I don’t agree with your opinion, interpretation of facts, on any of the events and the deals and I take up the contrary view on all your points. The backing of Gregg and the reverse mortgage, I just can’t tolerate, so I won’t get into it. If you own 49% of something you are a minority shareholder, because others own collectively 51% and you can be out voted. The revenue split for all is there to see in the source I posted. Again I’m repeating myself.

I stated the reason for my opinion in my original post, you set out yours in your second -we don’t agree. We won’t agree, it doesn’t matter how many times you keep writing the same thing. I’m not trying to win hearts or minds, couldn’t care less about being right on the interweb, but I think most blues should look into the context of the Kings Dock deal, it’s not and was not the unicorn it’s often portrayed.

Ill trust lads to look into the detail of it themselves, tbey now have the benefit of both our interpretations and they can make their own educated decision and ask themselves would they agree to 49% ownership and a revenue split of BMD with the council and other companies, while one of our minor directors owned it charging us a fortune in interest, the simplicity of the Kings dock deal is not the urban legend it’s made to be.

 

[Robbo05]

 

[4737carlin]

Mate your going mad for a soap box for conspiracy and dogma, I’m not going to give, you’ve some mad vendetta looking at your posting history, given you just post about Bill, I’m not feeding into it to enable.

I don’t agree with you analysis, I don’t agree with your opinion, interpretation of facts, on any of the events and the deals and I take up the contrary view on all your points. The backing of Gregg and the reverse mortgage, I just can’t tolerate, so I won’t get into it. If you own 49% of something you are a minority shareholder, because others own collectively 51% and you can be out voted. The revenue split for all is there to see in the source I posted. Again I’m repeating myself.

I stated the reason for my opinion in my original post, you set out yours in your second -we don’t agree. We won’t agree, it doesn’t matter how many times you keep writing the same thing. I’m not trying to win hearts or minds, couldn’t care less about being right on the interweb, but I think most blues should look into the context of the Kings Dock deal, it’s not and was not the unicorn it’s often portrayed.

Ill trust lads to look into the detail of it themselves, tbey now have the benefit of both our interpretations and they can make their own educated decision and ask themselves would they agree to 49% ownership and a revenue split of BMD with the council and other companies, while one of our minor directors owned it charging us a fortune in interest, the simplicity of the Kings dock deal is not the urban legend it’s made to be.

Your talking a lot of sense, Kings Dock might of benefited us, we will never know, but ask Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Wigan, Derby, Reading, Bolton, and possibly a few more I've forgot, if moving to a new ground bought them new levels of success and progress.
It might have done for us, but it certainly didn't damage us not going there.

 

[degsy]

Depends what they are getting sent off for...

For instance, that Neville tackle on Ronaldo would be looked at very differently now.
And Sandy Brown should've been given a medal for planting that snidey little Richard the 3rd Giles
Just sayin like.

 

[degsy]

I attended every AGM at that time and followed every bit of news on it. These excuses were never offered because they could never be substantiated as unfavourable. Kenwright offered no answers to the questions. The reverse mortgage was for an absolute pittance and we were getting a 49% stake..... making us the single biggest stakeholder. Entitled to all football related income, with a director who was going to benefit from the other activities. How can that have possibly not been in our favour? The power struggle that ensued was what sunk the deal...... the Council, Liverpool vision, city planners and other stakeholders couldn't believe it. They'd assembled a financial package of leveraged enabling development and investment funds and grants and the club turned it down!! All well documented!

Well said Tom

 

[SerenityNigh]

It's time for a certain sect of GOT to swallow humble pie and admit Ken got it Wright by picking mosh and being our chairman.

This window has smeared egg upon the faces of the ingreats.

The floor is yours.. buckos.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Mate your going mad for a soap box for conspiracy and dogma, I’m not going to give, you’ve some mad vendetta looking at your posting history, given you just post about Bill, I’m not feeding into it to enable.

I don’t agree with you analysis, I don’t agree with your opinion, interpretation of facts, on any of the events and the deals and I take up the contrary view on all your points. The backing of Gregg and the reverse mortgage, I just can’t tolerate, so I won’t get into it. If you own 49% of something you are a minority shareholder, because others own collectively 51% and you can be out voted. The revenue split for all is there to see in the source I posted. Again I’m repeating myself.

I stated the reason for my opinion in my original post, you set out yours in your second -we don’t agree. We won’t agree, it doesn’t matter how many times you keep writing the same thing. I’m not trying to win hearts or minds, couldn’t care less about being right on the interweb, but I think most blues should look into the context of the Kings Dock deal, it’s not and was not the unicorn it’s often portrayed.

Ill trust lads to look into the detail of it themselves, tbey now have the benefit of both our interpretations and they can make their own educated decision and ask themselves would they agree to 49% ownership and a revenue split of BMD with the council and other companies, while one of our minor directors owned it charging us a fortune in interest, the simplicity of the Kings dock deal is not the urban legend it’s made to be.

Not mad for a soap box at all, I'm responding directly to your points. You've made a stance and cannot back it up. Repeatedly stating that it's your opinion is not an argument.... it's blind faith!

The article isn't some misplaced revelation now suddenly shedding light as new evidence.... it and several others have been around for nearly 20 years and form the major evidence for most Evertonian's long held views that you are arguing against. It completely contradicts all of your key points.

We were goung to be comfortably the largest stakeholder. One of our directors was going to own the company responsible for most of the other major operations. We would've held far more of the cards than Man City now does at the Etihad, which is 100% owned by Manchester City Council. What do you think the other stake holders could do to the largest and biggest income generating tenant, with the largest stake? Turn it into an ice rink? It's a nonsense argument.

The outline finances are also fully explained. The loan was an inhouse reverse mortgage which may (or may not) have affected the ownership structure and benefitted the Gregs and diluted some other board members.... so what? In the grand scheme of things it was a tiny amount, for massive reward. That was the key decider in the now well documented power struggle that ensued and denied the club the chance to really move forward. Leaving us running on a shoestring for years to come. Regardless, we have no need to speculate about any of that because all the figures and benefits are outlined and are indisputable.

When we then put that into the context of: lost opportunities and revenue streams since; plus the sale of practically every property asset meaning we now dont even own our training ground; the motives and wasted millions and lies supporting the Kirkby Debacle; and WHP nonsense; Loss of AGMs because these very questions and points were being made by shareholders, and your man couldn't answer them..... and ultimately leading to the point where we are now having to spend £550-700m to get a smaller stadium in an inferior location, you have the REASONS for my posting history.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Your talking a lot of sense, Kings Dock might of benefited us, we will never know, but ask Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Wigan, Derby, Reading, Bolton, and possibly a few more I've forgot, if moving to a new ground bought them new levels of success and progress.
It might have done for us, but it certainly didn't damage us not going there.

So how do you think now having to spend £550-700m on a smaller stadium with no additional revenue streams in a less well connected location is going to benefit us in comparison?

No-one has said a new stadium guarantees success.... however ALL of those clubs you've mentioned went on to enjoy larger attendances and much increased revenues. Whether that has since been squandered or not is besides the point. We were offered that opportunity for a superior stadium than any of those for a fraction of the total cost in relative terms.

 

[Papa Shango]

When we then put that into the context of: lost opportunities and revenue streams since; plus the sale of practically every property asset meaning we now dont even own our training ground; the motives and wasted millions and lies supporting the Kirkby Debacle; and WHP nonsense; Loss of AGMs because these very questions and points were being made by shareholders, and your man couldn't answer them..... and ultimately leading to the point where we are now having to spend £550-700m to get a smaller stadium in an inferior location, you have the REASONS for my posting history.

Is it an inferior location? Personally I think there is a lot more to work with down that side of the docks.

I mean yeah it would look nice next to town etc but it would be horrific to get in and out of. We would be one of many things at Kings Dock, at BMD we will basically rule the area. Will be interesting to see how the area builds up.

 

[Death]