Everton Fans Conference 2012 Tonight Recap - Elstone, Jags, Baines, Sharp

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jags..class said:
He does have a point, they were getting a new ground and now they are getting redeveloped to 60.000 which will still leave them behind the likes of Man u, arsenal plus less money to rebuild the team as well.
Click to expand...

His point was that he thinks they're getting fook all mate, he's suggesting that the current owners have bought some time with this announcement, but have no real intention of funding it (or even having the option of funding it, due to CPO's etc) during their tenure.
 
Thx for the info , in terms of what got said the bigger picture is theres just no meat on the bones , same same , we carry on as we are etc , its also a bit rich elstone knocking the Sheites stadium stuff.

The Fact Remains , This Board has nothing to offer The Club


.
 
BoysInBlue said:
A bunch of people (who may or may not now be in the Blue Union - I'm not sure) demanded to know 'where all the money had gone' and vehemently disagreed with many aspects of the Kirkby move. When they weren't happy with the answers that Kenwright gave, they called an EGM (this happened in Sept 2008). The EGM didn't go well, and the dissenters threatened to keep calling EGMs (which each have to take place within a 14 day period of being requested, I think) until they got the answers they wanted, feeling the club weren't listening to them.

So the club simply scrapped holding AGMs altogether, so no EGMs could be called anymore.[/

I was confused by this as I thought it was a requirement under English company law that all companies hold an AGM every year. Looked it up and as of October 2007 the requirement was scrapped - AGMs are elective not mandatory now. Considering the club's legal cock ups in the past (e.g. Gosling) I did wonder whether they'd got this wrong but apparently not. Whatever their motive, the club not holding an AGM looks and is bad IMO.
Click to expand...
 
SheedyBracewellReidSteven said:
I was confused by this as I thought it was a requirement under English company law that all companies hold an AGM every year. Looked it up and as of October 2007 the requirement was scrapped - AGMs are elective not mandatory now. Considering the club's legal cock ups in the past (e.g. Gosling) I did wonder whether they'd got this wrong but apparently not. Whatever their motive, the club not holding an AGM looks and is bad IMO.
Click to expand...

Their motive is that they are incapable of answering questions put to them.

No GMs = no blunders from the upper echelons in public.
 
BoysInBlue said:
A bunch of people (who may or may not now be in the Blue Union - I'm not sure) demanded to know 'where all the money had gone' and vehemently disagreed with many aspects of the Kirkby move. When they weren't happy with the answers that Kenwright gave, they called an EGM (this happened in Sept 2008). The EGM didn't go well, and the dissenters threatened to keep calling EGMs (which each have to take place within a 14 day period of being requested, I think) until they got the answers they wanted, feeling the club weren't listening to them.

So the club simply scrapped holding AGMs altogether, so no EGMs could be called anymore.
Click to expand...
It was more than simply just threatening to repeatedly call EGMs (which causes great disruption and is expensive) though. The dissenters wanted to change the voting system from one vote per share to one vote per shareholder so that the more numerous minority shareholders could run the club instead of the majority shareholders.

SheedyBracewellReidSteven said:
Whatever their motive, the club not holding an AGM looks and is bad IMO.
Click to expand...
They had no choice - have been forced into it.

If I was one of 3/4 people who had spent tens of millions buying something then I wouldn't let a few hundred people who had spent £1,000 each tell me what to do with my investment either,
 
Coach said:
It was more than simply just threatening to repeatedly call EGMs (which causes great disruption and is expensive) though. The dissenters wanted to change the voting system from one vote per share to one vote per shareholder so that the more numerous minority shareholders could run the club instead of the majority shareholders.


They had no choice - have been forced into it.

If I was one of 3/4 people who had spent tens of millions buying something then I wouldn't let a few hundred people who had spent £1,000 each tell me what to do with my investment either,
Click to expand...

Thats not democratic for a supposed Socialist like Kenwright.
 
Thanks for the insight. Would like to have gone to that (and would have met the criteria as well). Interesting about the stadium (re-development or rather non re-development of Goodison Park). I have been arguing about this with Kopites in work. All they keep saying to me is that they will fill the stadium and reap the benefits going forward. When I say to them you 'll have to pay off the stadium first they just think it will be paid for by Fenway. Maybe it will, and if so what they then make in extra gate and corporate revenue all goes on re-investing in the squad. Sounds easy. Obviously from what Elstone said it wouldn't work that way for us because unless someone comes in and gives us a big cheque, we will have to finance any such development by our own means/loans! Cheers.
 
There "non disclosure agreements" suits their agenda perfectly.

Whenever asked about the lack of progress over 12 years they always say "lots of interested parties but we can't say much because of nda's"

Bunch of phoney lying [Poor language removed].
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top