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

[sageyefc]

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 ?

Doesn't matter the location, will always break down over money

 

[chicoazul]

It's inherent dumbness.

 

[AndyC]

Doesn't matter the location, will always break down over money

Aye

 

[Carlito]

I wouldn't get the same sense of pride from watching very talented millionaires play football as I do from mediocre ones, so the board should definitely stay. #Fabric #ClassAndDignity

 

[The Esk]

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.

Of course that would be bad practice, I am totally familiar with corporate governance and the expectations of the roles of Chairman and CEO.

But again you are not reading what I have said and drawing the wrong conclusions - deliberately or not I am not too sure.

The Board determine objectives and strategy and Elstone executes the Board's decisions.

It is simple, Elstone does as the Board wishes, no more.

 

[Dithering Dougie]

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.

3rd paragraph.

In most cases, the company's board of directors hires and evaluates the CEO. The board of directors is elected by the shareholders and has a duty to protect and preserve the interests of the shareholders. The CEO informs the board of the company's activities and plans on a regular basis. The CEO often has a seat on the board of directors, but the board can also fire the CEO -- that is, the CEO "serves at the pleasure of the board."

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

I love the fact that we've got a complete rookie trying to tell a millionaire businessman about the basic principles of corporate governance here. Fantastic stuff.

@Adversus - I think you should tag in your fellow enthusiastic google partner @bizzaro here, as you're in need of assistance

 

[marty mcfly]

Of course that would be bad practice, I am totally familiar with corporate governance and the expectations of the roles of Chairman and CEO.

But again you are not reading what I have said and drawing the wrong conclusions - deliberately or not I am not too sure.

The Board determine objectives and strategy and Elstone executes the Board's decisions.

It is simple, Elstone does as the Board wishes, no more.

OK if that's the case there are 4 directors of Everton FC.

1. Bill Kenwright
2. Robert Elstone
3. Robert Earl
4. Jon Woods

I don't think Jon Woods has much say so that leaves Robert Earl and the other two. I doubt Robert Earl has the time or knowledge to be coming up with strategies of how to grow and run Everton FC. That leaves Elstone and Bill. If it is Bill it's not the board making those decisions but rather one man on the board and that's an awful business practice because if things fail he's not going to fire himself.

Maybe that is the point you are making. I'm honestly unsure but stop saying the board are making the decision if what you really mean is it's Bill.

 

[marty mcfly]

3rd paragraph.

And?

Here's another quote

"The CEO must focus on the broader picture and lead an entire organization towards a strategic goal. There are a variety of ways to measure CEO performance, but most boards look at changes in share price and company strategy."

 

[The Esk]

OK if that's the case there are 4 directors of Everton FC.

1. Bill Kenwright
2. Robert Elstone
3. Robert Earl
4. Jon Woods

I don't think Jon Woods has much say so that leaves Robert Earl and the other two. I doubt Robert Earl has the time or knowledge to be coming up with strategies of how to grow and run Everton FC. That leaves Elstone and Bill. If it is Bill it's not the board making those decisions but rather one man on the board and that's an awful business practice because if things fail he's not going to fire himself.

Maybe that is the point you are making. I'm honestly unsure but stop saying the board are making the decision if what you really mean is it's Bill.

Ok my last attempt at making you understand what goes on.

The Board - ie the 4 Directors make decisions on objectives and strategy, I'm guessing that Earl gets involved by phone (a usual board practice for overseas directors).Woods by the way is very involved at Board level. Elstone as a Board member is involved in these discussions and his views may or may not be listened to.

Whatever the majority decision of the Board then Elstone as CEO is charged with executing those decisions. He will report back to Bill informally as in usual CEO/Chairman relationships. Formally he will report to the whole Board on his progress in meeting previously agreed objectives and strategies. Elstone will have little or no lee way in executing outside of previously made Board decisions.

Is this clear enough?

 

[Dithering Dougie]

And?

Here's another quote

"The CEO must focus on the broader picture and lead an entire organization towards a strategic goal. There are a variety of ways to measure CEO performance, but most boards look at changes in share price and company strategy."

You're point seems to be that Elstone shouldn't serve the board and implement its wishes, yet the link you provided for a definition of what a CEO does actually shows you're badly mistaken.

 

[marty mcfly]

You're point seems to be that Elstone shouldn't serve the board and implement its wishes, yet the link you provided for a definition of what a CEO does actually shows you're badly mistaken.

No that's not my point. I agree that the board are united but they're united around Elstone's strategy. If he fails in that strategy then the board will fire him.

The broader point that I'm making is that he's been in the job since 2007 and has had to take over after the failure of destination Kirkby and Wyness and the obvious cost of that failure and get the club into a position were we can again attempt to build a new stadium while at the same time keeping us competitive and all that with no additional investment. Short term and medium term goals have been relatively hit and now it's just the long term goal of the stadium and we will know soon but it's too early to judge now.

What I disagree with is the notion that Bill runs the company but I fully concede that he may well do and Elstone is only a puppet and a fall guy when things go wrong. If that is the case god help us.

 

[chicoazul]

A "businessman" being so poor at basic business comprehension gives me hope that I can make the number 9 jersey at Everton my own yet.

Soon.

 

[The Esk]

No that's not my point. I agree that the board are united but they're united around Elstone's strategy. If he fails in that strategy then the board will fire him.

The broader point that I'm making is that he's been in the job since 2007 and has had to take over after the failure of destination Kirkby and Wyness and the obvious cost of that failure and get the club into a position were we can again attempt to build a new stadium while at the same time keeping us competitive and all that with no additional investment. Short term and medium term goals have been relatively hit and now it's just the long term goal of the stadium and we will know soon but it's too early to judge now.

What I disagree with is the notion that Bill runs the company but I fully concede that he may well do and Elstone is only a puppet and a fall guy when things go wrong. If that is the case god help us.

I just think you are constantly and deliberately obtuse.

The position could not be made any clearer to you, yet you chose not to acknowledge it.

 

[marty mcfly]

Ok my last attempt at making you understand what goes on.

The Board - ie the 4 Directors make decisions on objectives and strategy, I'm guessing that Earl gets involved by phone (a usual board practice for overseas directors).Woods by the way is very involved at Board level. Elstone as a Board member is involved in these discussions and his views may or may not be listened to.

Whatever the majority decision of the Board then Elstone as CEO is charged with executing those decisions. He will report back to Bill informally as in usual CEO/Chairman relationships. Formally he will report to the whole Board on his progress in meeting previously agreed objectives and strategies. Elstone will have little or no lee way in executing outside of previously made Board decisions.

Is this clear enough?

The question is who comes up with the strategy in the first place before the board talk about it and make their decision. None of that has any relevance.

Do you seriously think it's a good idea for potentially a guy who doesn't believe in a decision to be tasked with carrying it out?