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

[joey_macmo]

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.

No offence but you havent addressed my post at all.

Confidentiality was clearly not an issue just 4 days before the AGM so it is almost certain that this was also not an issue for the questions not being answered at the AGM itself.

Logic dictates that the reason they have not answered the questions since is exactly the same reason they didn't answer them at the AGM despite saying they would.

 

[The Esk]

No offence but you havent addressed my post at all.

Confidentiality was clearly not an issue just 4 days before the AGM so it is almost certain that this was also not an issue for the questions not being answered at the AGM itself.

Logic dictates that the reason they have not answered the questions since is exactly the same reason they didn't answer them at the AGM despite saying they would.

No offence taken mate. I think I answered you. The question is (i) are they not answering because they have no desire to do so, nor had any desire to do so at the AGM despite their agreement to do so, or (ii) the fact that they have not answered subsequently or given an explanation for not answering is down to some form of QA as part of an exclusive DD process?

I don't know the answer to that. However to follow through the logic of your argument it is likely that Elstone would say "I am not answering the questions for the reasons I gave at the AGM". The fact that there's no explanation offered suggests he is bound whether he intended answering or not.

 

[jinkyali]

The irony...
Bound by CA but inviting offers from elsewhere.

Shysters. The lot of them.

 

[magicjuan]

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.

Didn't the club acknowledge exclusivity when this interest was first raised?

Or did I just imagine that through a haze of bed wetting delirium?

 

[The Esk]

Didn't the club acknowledge exclusivity when this interest was first raised?

Or did I just imagine that through a haze of bed wetting delirium?

I can't comment on the state of your delirium mate but the source of the Times report has never been stated, and the club have not formally denied or acknowledged the report - absolutely no comment from the club.

 

[magicjuan]

I can't comment on the state of your delirium mate but the source of the Times report has never been stated, and the club have not formally denied or acknowledged the report - absolutely no comment from the club.

a 'non denial denial' as Ben Bradlee would say

 

[kithnou]

29/1/16 they request a meeting with the Chairman? Hmmm...