The Everton Board Thread (Inc. Bill Kenwright / Blue Union)

[Coach]

You're right it's untrue.

If it weren't letters warning of potential law suits would be flying out of GP, the issue is some don't like questions being asked and resort to blather.

Not at all. The decision as to whether or not to persue someone for libel is partly determined by it's cost benefit not on whether or not a libel has actually been committed. People can be 100% certain they have been libelled but still decide not to chase it through the courts.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

That's right. It's at the level of organisation not the individual that the interest in the OOCs is. Of course, I'm sure it suits you to make this all about "loonies talking about Bill's agent fees he sucks out the club". It's a bit more difficult to focus on the issue at hand isn't it?

Suits me? What's my agenda then?

I've never mentioned 'loonies', I merely explained that what was being intimated was fraud, pure & simple. There is no middle ground, so you either believe that Bill & Co are "at it" or you don't. Take your pick.

 

[Coach]

Libel is only the telling of lies.

Something Bill knows all about it.

No. It isn't.

It is about defamation of character and damage to reputation.

For example, while someone may have told a lie in the past it does not justify calling them a liar on an ongoing basis - this would be libelous.

 

[Muggins]

No. It isn't.

It is about defamation of character and damage to reputation.

For example, while someone may have told a lie in the past it does not justify calling them a liar on an ongoing basis - this would be libelous.

You seem quite keen on this mate.

 

[Brennan]

No. It isn't.

It is about defamation of character and damage to reputation.

For example, while someone may have told a lie in the past it does not justify calling them a liar on an ongoing basis - this would be libelous.

Hi Bob

 

[Coach]

Hi Bob

Ahhh yes. More empty ad-hominem from you.

 

[Sharpys top lip]

My god, i can't believe members of this board and plebs in high office are coming on here to defend this ****.....DON'T YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO, LIKE RUN THE ****ING CLUB!!! I can't believe the idiots we have at 'our' club.

 

[Brennan]

Ahhh yes. More empty ad-hominem from you.

I struggle to understand why you would still be beating this dead horse otherwise, tbh.

Great, some of the things said on here could be seen as libellous. What's your point though ? The same people have been saying similar things for years on here, the club apparently doesn't care.

 

[Coach]

I struggle to understand why you would still be beating this dead horse otherwise, tbh.

Great, some of the things said on here could be seen as libellous. What's your point though ? The same people have been saying similar things for years on here, the club apparently doesn't care.

There are so many things wrong with that post I don't know where to begin.

 

[billy bluestar]

There are so many things wrong with that post I don't know where to begin.

It's an open forum where people give there opinoins. Why even mention libel ?

If people don't like what they read, don't read it. My thoughts on the matter, anyway.

 

[davek]

Suits me? What's my agenda then?

I've never mentioned 'loonies', I merely explained that what was being intimated was fraud, pure & simple. There is no middle ground, so you either believe that Bill & Co are "at it" or you don't. Take your pick.

That's a frighteningly black and white world you inhabit. If a call for clarity is seen as just a backdoor way of saying "Bill's robbing the club" it's no wonder you banned the AGMs.

 

[steken1]

If I owned Everton FC I could set up an office supply company tomorrow and charge £10 a biro with a 100,000 a year and 400,000 notepads at a tenner a go too. It would be completely legal and above board. It would still be me syphoning money out the club though.

It's not quite as simple as fraud or above board at all.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

If I owned Everton FC I could set up an office supply company tomorrow and charge £10 a biro with a 100,000 a year and 400,000 notepads at a tenner a go too. It would be completely legal and above board. It would still be me syphoning money out the club though.

It's not quite as simple as fraud or above board at all.

If you were a company director & did that, do you think you'd be operating in the best interests of the shareholders?

 

[steken1]

If you were a company director & did that, do you think you'd be operating in the best interests of the shareholders?

If I banned AGM's, refused to itemise OOC's, and plainly refused to answer questions on the subject knowing full well all the majority shareholders would side with me it wouldn't really matter.

You could probably do the same with catering & corporates, merchandising and raising finance if you were that way inclined.

My uncle's a small shareholder he hasn't got a clue who we get our pens and paper off, nor would he be able to find out.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

That's a frighteningly black and white world you inhabit. If a call for clarity is seen as just a backdoor way of saying "Bill's robbing the club" it's no wonder you banned the AGMs.

I banned them? haha, so you've decided that I'm a board member have you? That's a frighteningly simple World that you inhabit Dave.

The calls for clarity around the numbers are between the club & it's shareholders, if the shareholders want further detail then (as I've said before) imo the club has a moral obligation to deliver that.

What I've taken issue with, is those who are citing the OOC's as an area of suspicion & specifically in relation to it being an area where Kenwright could be taking money from. Go back to #8099 & see where I joined this debate & in what context.

As for 'black & white' it is black & white, as whichever way you cut it, for the OOC's to be hiding anything that's unexpected, then it equals fraud. The 'clarity' being called for by the usual suspects (you included) is based on mis-trust & you are by definition therefore intimating that there could be fraud at play.