Chris Matheson MP being gagged by Elstone, EFC shareholders meeting moved to the Winslow pub

[AdaBrummieblue]

Can we at least hope that Moshiri is quietly about to discard these wasters? I don't get too much news down here, just dribs'n'drabs. Serious question. Do we look likely to remove this kind of behaviour under Moshiri or is the club so ingrained in its "Old Boy" policy that we literally have no chance of progressing? Because we won't if this is a future thing.

 

[DerbyshireAndHarper]

To be fair, if someone accused me of criminal behavioir under the Companies Act in the knowledge that I could take no action against them, I wouldn't be that keen to have them as a guest speaker under my roof, would you?
He came out with these statements when
Vibrac had not been involved in giving finance for approximately 15 months, Robert Earl/BRC had sold there shares about 7-8 months previously, and years earlier Philip Green had denied being involved in any way other than an informal adviser to Bill Kenwright.
I understand the no smoke without fire stance taken by some, but I also understand the Club stance - why should we publically announce things which we needn't.

He didn't actually accuse anyone of anything. During a discussion on the governance of football, Matheson said and I quote:

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/philip-green-was-everton-shadow-12036635

"Until March 2016, Robert Earl was a director of Everton - and I should say I am a season ticket holder at Everton - declared 23% of the ownership at Everton through BCR Sports, registered in the British Virgin Islands. However, a previous director and, in fact, the previous owner of those shares, Paul Gregg, says he wasn't paid for those shares that were transferred to Robert Earl , by Robert Earl or even by BCR Sports ... by Sir Phillip Green who was not registered as a director at Everton. And I understand that Sir Philip Green had something of a role of shadow director at Everton, including having PWC conduct an audit of the club and summoning the chief executive and the team manager to BHS headquarters to discuss transfer budgets. If someone has paid for some share through someone else and through an entity in the British Virgin Islands, but isn't a director, would that a problem?" - question asked to Greg Clarke, chairman of the FA.

Clarke replied that he wasn't aware of BCR Sports or Vibrac, and the discussion moved on.

It was a question asked. No-one was accused of any wrong doing. At a stretch you could say an insinuation was made. You have to remember, at the time, Green was all over the papers with the collapse of BHS and was taking a lot of flak, so it was topical.

Regardless of what you wrote, the club's stance in this instance - 5 MONTHS after this discussion in parliament - comes across as extremely petty, and like they have something to hide. It's censorship of discussion, it's a rebuke for making such a comment, complete with the insult calling a long time supporter of the club 'anti-Everton'. The stance is made even worse by the club's complete unwillingness to answer questions about the topic in the first place. There's no valid excuse for it. The club should not be vengeful towards an MP (or actually, any fan who shows concern for the club) for uttering something they do not like.

It's a pity the club isn't this quick to 'ban' members of the media who write things that truly hurt the day to day running of the club, and who are actually 'anti-Everton'. It's also interesting that they have yet to follow LFC's lead in banning The Sun from Goodison, despite public calls for them to do this, yet make a well respected local MP not welcome at the club. I have zero sympathy for the club's stance. They have no right to adopt any sort of moral high ground, not when they have declined to give any proper answers on the topic in the first place.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Just re-read the mortgage of shares.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Bank of Scotland gave an irrevocable letter of credit to TBHL in return for the mortgage. From reading the accounts for TBHL, this entity had no borrowings at any point.

So, it would appear that the credit line was available to TBHL but remained unused.

No evidence, but I wonder if this line of credit had anything to do with the much vaunted "ring fenced" money for Kings Dock. Sadly, I suspect I will never know.

Posted that Sep 13, 2015. That was the letter and was never utilised.

"I helped him buy Everton, I wrote a £30m letter for him"

 

[hibbo'sclass]

Anything that starts with "It is my understanding" is like using alleged and I note that the paragraph after you finished your quote was the one in which to paraphrase PG said he had no interest in the club. Full text below;

Everton chief executive Keith Wyness has resigned, the club has announced.
Wyness had been the driving force behind the club's plans to build a new 50,000-capacity stadium in Kirkby, which is awaiting Government approval.
But Everton claim Wyness' sudden departure is not linked to the future of their proposed new stadium.
BBC sports editor Mihir Bose believes Wyness's exit was prompted by retail tycoon Philip Green's involvement behind the scenes at Goodison Park.
"Although Green, one of the richest men in the country, is not formally connected to Everton, he has been involved in much of the Toffees' recent activity," said Bose.
"I understand the manager David Moyes has had to go to Green on his plans to buy and sell players, and also finalise his contract."
Green is a long-standing friend of Everton chairman Bill Kenwright and Robert Earl, who owns nearly 24% of Everton through a British Virgin Islands company.

Green confirmed his relationship with Kenwright, and speaking to Bose, he said: "Everybody knows I'm a friend of Bill Kenwright, and I helped him get Everton.
"It is his club and his ball. He asked me for advice - If people ring me up and on a confidential basis ask me to help, what is wrong with that?
"Dozens of people call me up and they get free advice. I am always willing to help. I have no interest in investing in football, I could have invested 10 years ago but I did not."
In terms of the stadium project Wyness was overseeing, planning consent has been received for the Kirkby stadium but a government decision on whether or not to "call in" the project is expected this week.
Wyness had previously voiced fears that calling it in could jeopardise the plans.
But a club statement said: "The club wish to re-iterate our commitment to the Destination Kirkby project.
"The departure of Keith Wyness is in no way connected to that project."
Everton are concerned that an inquiry would put back the move for a year and kill off the controversial £400m scheme.
The club's debts stand at about £66m, which is understood to include an overdraft of £40m and a long-term debt of £26m.
The proposals to move to Kirkby have been opposed by some Everton fans angered by a possible move outside Liverpool's city boundaries.
Club sources meanwhile though insist it is a case of "business as usual" at Goodison despite Wyness' departure, with a spokesman adding: "The board will meet in about a fortnight to discuss the situation."
It is believed Wyness actually tendered his resignation by email after discussions with board members at the weekend, and that he will seek to negotiate a pay-off.

The above is the full and unabridged version, the highlights are mine.

Give me the date of the Kenwright quote and I am pretty certain that it will coincide with BK falling out with the Greggs who allegedly had financed BK's part of TBHL and probably relates to PG helping BK to get the club. It may or may not be that PG loaned money personally to BK - this has nothing to do with the club or anyone else and BK would be right to plead confidentiality.

The Times piece that you refer to I can't find a link to, but as you reference Leafpoint let's follow the paperwork - suggest that if you look up the filings for both companies at Companies House you will find that there were no charges raised, so if it occurred it was unsecured, if you want to refer to the Everton accounts there is no mention of it. I have my own thoughts about Leafpoint, but no evidence to back them up so commenting is ridiculous and if I'm wrong, libellous.

Above was my fill response to you on 16 November and gives the full article in which PG denies any formal involvement.

Think the fact Matheson was speaking under privilege is being over emphasised

It's worth noting that Mihir Bose was never sued or even asked to retract his piece when he wrote this for the BBC.

Not only that Green even gave quotes for the piece.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

@DerbyshireAndHarper
So it's now your position that Matheson does not think or imply that PG was a shadow director?
If PG were a shadow director and had an interest in the shares, there would be serious ramifications with PL (lied about ownership/no fit and proper person test) the auditors would have been lied to by virtue of disclosure of who beneficially owned the shares in the accounts and there would be breaches of the Companies Acts, but no-one was accused of any doing anything wrong?
You ignore the fact that any allegations were made at least 7 months after any of them (even if true) were resolved, and to be frank Davek hit the nail on the head with his flag of convenience comment earlier in the thread.
As woollyblue said, the club could have handled it better, but I stand by my earlier comment.
Just out of interest, at what point would it not be ok for someone not registered as a director to pay for shares - the answer is that if PG loaned BCR the money to purchase the shares, but BCR was the beneficial owner as is stated in the accounts it is nobody else's business.
I would point out that Matheson seems to believe that a shareholder and director are inextricably linked, which is simply incorrect.
I am neither a board apologist nor a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that both sides have screwed up royally over this.

 

[DerbyshireAndHarper]

@DerbyshireAndHarper
So it's now your position that Matheson does not think or imply that PG was a shadow director?
If PG were a shadow director and had an interest in the shares, there would be serious ramifications with PL (lied about ownership/no fit and proper person test) the auditors would have been lied to by virtue of disclosure of who beneficially owned the shares in the accounts and there would be breaches of the Companies Acts, but no-one was accused of any doing anything wrong?
You ignore the fact that any allegations were made at least 7 months after any of them (even if true) were resolved, and to be frank Davek hit the nail on the head with his flag of convenience comment earlier in the thread.
As woollyblue said, the club could have handled it better, but I stand by my earlier comment.
Just out of interest, at what point would it not be ok for someone not registered as a director to pay for shares - the answer is that if PG loaned BCR the money to purchase the shares, but BCR was the beneficial owner as is stated in the accounts it is nobody else's business.
I would point out that Matheson seems to believe that a shareholder and director are inextricably linked, which is simply incorrect.
I am neither a board apologist nor a conspiracy theorist, but I believe that both sides have screwed up royally over this.

I respectfully disagree for a number of reasons. The allegations/insinuations/whatever you want to call them have been around for years.
The EFCSA asked the club/Elstone to answer questions regarding this back in November 2015, the first 7 of a list of 41 questions were specifically designed to clear up this whole matter, and the club not only declined to do so, but insulted the EFCSA by calling the questions 'disappointing'. Again, if the club has done everything above board and has got nothing to hide, then answer the questions.

I don't 'have a position', other than to point out exactly what Matheson said 5 months ago in my above post, that has supposedly led to him being called 'anti-Everton' and the Shareholders Association being told that they could not proceed with their scheduled meeting on club premises if Matheson remained an invited speaker. EFCSA quite rightly stood up to the club (it's not their first disagreement with Elstone nor will it be their last) and reluctantly said they would hold their meeting elsewhere. The only reason Matheson is not speaking at the EFCSA meeting at the Winslow pub on Thursday evening is because he spoke to Elstone to find out what the problem was, was insulted by being called 'anti-Everton', and for the sake of a quiet life, respectfully bowed out of speaking.

I don't think the ins and outs of BCR/Vibrac etc (although important) are the burning issue here. The burning issue is the club holding a grudge over something mentioned in parliament 5 months ago and censoring someone regarding something that they themselves refuse to publicly clear up in sufficient detail. We're not dealing in MI5 sensitive information here, these are questions that are quite reasonable and most normal businesses would answer, if anything to appear open and transparent. The fact they don't answer these questions is why the topic persists, and is why situations like the one the EFCSA/Matheson find themselves in occur. And things like this will continue to occur whilst certain people remain at the club and adopt this defensive, vengeful stance.

 

[hibbo'sclass]

I respectfully disagree for a number of reasons. The allegations/insinuations/whatever you want to call them have been around for years.
The EFCSA asked the club/Elstone to answer questions regarding this back in November 2015, the first 7 of a list of 41 questions were specifically designed to clear up this whole matter, and the club not only declined to do so, but insulted the EFCSA by calling the questions 'disappointing'. Again, if the club has done everything above board and has got nothing to hide, then answer the questions.

I don't 'have a position', other than to point out exactly what Matheson said 5 months ago in my above post, that has supposedly led to him being called 'anti-Everton' and the Shareholders Association being told that they could not proceed with their scheduled meeting on club premises if Matheson remained an invited speaker. EFCSA quite rightly stood up to the club (it's not their first disagreement with Elstone nor will it be their last) and reluctantly said they would hold their meeting elsewhere. The only reason Matheson is not speaking at the EFCSA meeting at the Winslow pub on Thursday evening is because he spoke to Elstone to find out what the problem was, was insulted by being called 'anti-Everton', and for the sake of a quiet life, respectfully bowed out of speaking.

I don't think the ins and outs of BCR/Vibrac etc (although important) are the burning issue here. The burning issue is the club holding a grudge over something mentioned in parliament 5 months ago and censoring someone regarding something that they themselves refuse to publicly clear up in sufficient detail. We're not dealing in MI5 sensitive information here, these are questions that are quite reasonable and most normal businesses would answer, if anything to appear open and transparent. The fact they don't answer these questions is why the topic persists, and is why situations like the one the EFCSA/Matheson find themselves in occur. And things like this will continue to occur whilst certain people remain at the club and adopt this defensive, vengeful stance.

I suppose what I'm getting at is that there is a certain gravitas (real or imaginary) attached when an MP says something that isn't thete on web postings by WT, so he made a faux pas by bringing up historically unfounded allegations in the public domain using PP as a shield. What rankles is that the meeting was about governance of the FA from memory, so bringing these up smack of "grandstanding".
Have the club done the right thing - no, but did they have the right to do it - yes.
Let's be honest, it's a PR disaster.
I also think Elstone is a train crash, and live for the day that the club get rid.
With regard to the EFCSA/RE relationship, I had a pm conversation with a respected poster and he asked me if I knew anyone involved. My response was can't comment as I don't know any of them personally, but the disdain that RE appears to treat them with is remarkable and makes me think that they are quite weak as an organisation and are being used to generate positive sound bites about interaction with minority shareholders.
I disagree that giving out detailed accounts is what a normal company would do, as the detailed P&L contains more sensitive information than the statutory accounts, and would be leaked quickly.
So, I'm really a fence-sitter on this one with a twist - I think both sides are wrong.

 

[RomanReigns]

if the club don't want to discuss it then sadly it is probably true

if they have nothing to hide then why not just answer the question

silence speaks volumes

 

[degsy]

It's a power thing; Matheson said things, true or untrue, doesn't matter, where nobody in the whole land, from The Queen down (except Parliament themselves, if it came out that he lied to Parliament and they were miffed enough to pull him on it - nobody is I think, what do they care) let alone EFC, could touch him.
Tit for Tat, simple.

Now as to why they don't like it, gets you into the 'No smoke without fire' thing.

 

[joey_macmo]

Above was my fill response to you on 16 November and gives the full article in which PG denies any formal involvement.

There was a reason i separated the posts as that wasn't a response to you. My point being that many on this forum have said Matheson would have been sued had it not been for parlimentary privilege. Yet here Green was happy to talk to the chief sports reporter at the BBC about an article that said the manager of Everton football club had to go to green to buy/sell players and indeed for his own contract.

Never mind asking for a retraction or suing the reporter he was even happy to give quotes.

 

[joey_macmo]

Posted that Sep 13, 2015. That was the letter and was never utilised.

I'd say "I wrote him a £30m letter" is not denying he had any involvement.

Whether it was used or not is irrelevant to the point I was making

 

[Roger Milla]

The club is akin to North Korea!

I've said enough, I'm going into hiding.

 

[Papa Shango]

Unless this Chris Matheson can fill in for Lukaku when he needs a rest I don't really care.

I'm all about that happens on the pitch.

 

[Papa Shango]

Can we at least hope that Moshiri is quietly about to discard these wasters? I don't get too much news down here, just dribs'n'drabs. Serious question. Do we look likely to remove this kind of behaviour under Moshiri or is the club so ingrained in its "Old Boy" policy that we literally have no chance of progressing? Because we won't if this is a future thing.

We have progressed since these "old boys" took over.

It's like Peter Johnson never existed!

 

[brieverton]

As much as I would like Elstone to be replaced, surely he has always taken his instructions from Kenwright in any case? I don't find it plausible that he would elicit an independent stance on this, he has his place in the structure like everyone else.

It would be hard to countenance anything of significance happening or not happening at Everton without at least tacit approval from Kenwright, and now, Moshiri.

They are all acting in concert with Elstone the one sent out to do the bidding.

The 18-month period in the run-up to Moshiri's acquisition of shares clearly resulted in cementing good relations between him and BK/RE. Even if the latter two remain in place only until Moshiri's options are exercised, I still would not be surprised at that point if we don't see new faces.

We need people in the boardroom capable of taking us into the 21st century as a club and ensuring delivery on the stadium, not a continued love-in between them all, to the clubs detriment.