The Everton Board Thread 2015/16 [ Not takeover related ]

[marty mcfly]

Major decisions will be run past Green. That was Wynesses' experience and I doubt his successor enjoys much more latitude to act.

What you see is what you get: a nodding dog.

Running decisions past the board is different than the board making the decisions.

The way I see it is you can fit things into 3 categories. The short, medium and long term.

The short term is obviously the on-field performance and 1st teams squad which and I know right now we've been hit with a lot of injuries and older players being fazed out but generally the squad is heading in the right direction. The medium term strategy is the investment in the youth teams which again is going well. However it's the long term strategy, the stadium issue that will decide if we are able to progress as a club and on this issue it's just impossible to judge at this point. Any reasonable person knows that takes time and hopefully progress is being made.

 

[Woolly Blue]

The directors don't own the majority of the shares in most companies due to dilution but in the companies which have had to hire a CEO ...

That has some validity for quoted companies where the majority of shares are normally held by II's, but it's not relevant to Everton.

Elstone appears to be pretty much a manager who implements the board's vision. Mind you, if he's just a manager, is it right that he appears to be treated as a shadow director ?

Edit : ffs, The Esk is too quick for me

 

[marty mcfly]

With respect you are talking about the relatively small number of quoted companies with institutional external investors who appoint a CEO to run the business.

The vast majority of businesses in the world are privately owned with the majority shareholdings in the Board.

I know this through personal experience having both run companies and sat on many many Boards.

From what I know of Everton I can assure you that Elstone takes orders and executes them. Kenwright and Woods only give the impression of being hands off.

I'm not talking about just the large companies. Even the relatively small ones with less than 50 employees generally have needed to take on investment to the point were the leadership team don't own the majority of the shares. Leadership team isn't necessarily the entirety of the board.

Who's calling the shots doesn't really matter anyway. It's a bit like the idea of who do you blame, Martinez or Bill. Ultimately they're both on the same team and I would prefer to hold them all equally responsible.

As you said if Elstone is being prevented from doing his job as he sees fit he should resign.

 

[roydo]

They certainly seem to make running a football club look pretty difficult.

Pretty much guaranteed income stream. One main objective. Captive client bank.

Or have I missed something?

 

[The Esk]

I'm not talking about just the large companies. Even the relatively small ones with less than 50 employees generally have needed to take on investment to the point were the leadership team don't own the majority of the shares. Leadership team isn't necessarily the entirety of the board.

I know you like to make a counter point to every response but the majority of businesses around the world are family or privately owned and managed by their owners.

The UK perhaps less so than most other places in the world for a host of reasons I wont go into here, but globally that is the case.

 

[marty mcfly]

I know you like to make a counter point to every response but the majority of businesses around the world are family or privately owned and managed by their owners.

The UK perhaps less so than most other places in the world for a host of reasons I wont go into here, but globally that is the case.

If Everton are setup like a family business and Bill is both Chairman and CEO and Elstone is just a manager with a fancy title then they are even more incompetent than I thought.

You may well be right but the only thing I would say is Bill doesn't really have enough shares for that kind of control. I'm surprised he's been able to hold it together for so long.

 

[chicoazul]

@bizzaro this lid could give you a run on being a font of knowledge about everything, ever.

Don't worry, I prefer you though.

 

[The Esk]

If Everton are setup like a family business and Bill is both Chairman and CEO and Elstone is just a manager with a fancy title then they are even more incompetent than I thought.

You may well be right but the only thing I would say is Bill doesn't really have enough shares for that kind of control. I'm surprised he's been able to hold it together for so long.

You have an amazing ability to draw conclusions contrary to the points put to you.

Everton are not a family business, they are a business which is 69% owned by 3 directors who appear united in their objectives and strategy. As such they have control of the Company.

They employ a CEO who is a Board member but not a Director who takes direction from his Board and executes their wishes. They also employ a director of communications and commerce who similarly takes direction from the Board, of which he is not a member.

All clear now?

 

[marty mcfly]

You have an amazing ability to draw conclusions contrary to the points put to you.

Everton are not a family business, they are a business which is 69% owned by 3 directors who appear united in their objectives and strategy. As such they have control of the Company.

They employ a CEO who is a Board member but not a Director who takes direction from his Board and executes their wishes. They also employ a director of communications and commerce who similarly takes direction from the Board, of which he is not a member.

All clear now?

I said run like a family business referring to your statement.

"but the majority of businesses around the world are family or privately owned and managed by their owners."

If they aren't run like a family business then Elstone would be the one in charge of both the implementation and designing the strategy and while of course he would only have been hired if the board agree with him and they would need to sign off on it along the way too it's still him that people should be pointing the finger at because it would be his strategy.

You can't have it both ways. It's either run like a proper company (Elstone's fault) or it's run like a family company (Bill's fault).

I'm genuinely interested to know which one it is. My guess is that it's Elstone and just from the dates and nothing more Wyness resigned because he lost the backing of the board over the whole Destination Kirkby fiasco.

WHP will be the making or breaking of Elstone. That's what I think.

 

[The Esk]

You can't have it both ways. It's either run like a proper company (Elstone's fault) or it's run like a family company (Bill's fault).

I am sorry I don't like pulling people up, but you are really making no sense distinguishing between "proper" and "family" run businesses in this manner.

The Everton Board determine objectives and strategy as they own the majority of shares. Elstone as a non share owning employee executes those objectives and strategies at the Board's behest.

Quite simple really.

 

[1966efc]

I am sorry I don't like pulling people up, but you are really making no sense distinguishing between "proper" and "family" run businesses in this manner.

The Everton Board determine objectives and strategy as they own the majority of shares. Elstone as a non share owning employee executes those objectives and strategies at the Board's behest.

Quite simple really.

If he were to accept this, it would reveal the chink in his armour: that he doesn't actually have copyright on all knowledge everywhere.

 

[AndyC]

Methinks, somewhat reluctantly and sadly, that WHP is almost certainly the third stadium scheme that's gone pear-shaped. Kings Dock would have been perfect, Kirkby was never really viable and WHP seems to me to be too reliant upon help from a council that can't give it.
Back to the drawing board for the board... Edge Lane anyone ?

 

[marty mcfly]

I am sorry I don't like pulling people up, but you are really making no sense distinguishing between "proper" and "family" run businesses in this manner.

The Everton Board determine objectives and strategy as they own the majority of shares. Elstone as a non share owning employee executes those objectives and strategies at the Board's behest.

Quite simple really.

http://www.investinganswers.com/fin...corporations/chief-executive-officer-ceo-2143

What you are referring to is basically Bill doing the job of the CEO and having a manager to run it day by day. As I said that's basically Bill acting as both chairman and CEO which is a very bad business practice. Normally it's only family companies that can get away with that.

Saying that the board runs the company is a bit like saying the cabinet or parliament run the country and not the PM.

 

[roydo]

*emails virtual anadin to @the esk *

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Oh ffs

*resists the urge, leaves it to the esk, exits thread*