Season 2011-12
The Mail Bag

Administration

 169 Comments: First  |  Last

Walter Smith came out with this statement on the situation at Rangers:

"I had two close calls at Everton with administration but each time we managed to keep the club going so Alistair's sitting in a position that I've never been in."

Was it ever that bad, and, if so, when?

Gerry Quinn, Houston     Posted 08/03/2012 at 00:07:33

back Return to the Mail Bag  :  Add your Comments back

Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Eric Myles
966   Posted 08/03/2012 at 03:46:02

Report abuse

Moyes has had more close calls than him then.
Andy Callan
974   Posted 08/03/2012 at 08:16:43

Report abuse

I don't know why that comes as so much of a shock mate; we've been in Shit Street for years and years. Everyone knows that...

I bet you a big gold pig that Everton aren't the only club in this position.

Fuck it anyway; what does it matter.....?!?!?!? I hope Celtic go the same way as them bastards, then The Shite, then Villa, then UTD, then Chelski, then City and then Spurs...
Derek Thomas
976   Posted 08/03/2012 at 08:22:40

Report abuse

Andy 974; I've had a soft spot for Celtic since their 'underdogs' win in 1967, so lets give them a miss eh and they did sell us Bobby Collins...oh and they are always a way out for Davey if those London jobs fall through.

A couple of years ago there were rumours that there was no money in the bank to pay the wages a few times.
Kevin Sparke
977   Posted 08/03/2012 at 08:28:07

Report abuse

I suspect one of the occasions was about the time when Duncan Ferguson was sold behind his back by 'Spuddie' Johnson... any guesses on the other?
Derek Thomas
980   Posted 08/03/2012 at 08:37:02

Report abuse

The clue might be in any of the bigger ' surprise ' transfers out during Walters reign.
Shane Corcoran
982   Posted 08/03/2012 at 09:07:35

Report abuse

Let's just have Everton Andy and we'll win the league without playing eh?
Adam Bennett
983   Posted 08/03/2012 at 09:19:11

Report abuse

Agree with Kevin (977) one will almost certainly be Duncan?s sale. My guess at the other, off the top of my head, could be the summer we sold Jeffers and Ball?

One thing is for certain, Walter Smith can?t just say a throw away line like that while talking about Rangers, and not come out and explain fully what went on at Everton. Whoever the interviewer was, he/she needs to get on the phone to Smith and ask him more about his Everton comment.
Andrew Ellams
984   Posted 08/03/2012 at 09:23:50

Report abuse

There seems to be a lot of people hoping for the demise of other clubs, why? Firstly if Andy's wished came true then football in this country and Scotland would become pretty poor very quickly and quite possibly die altogether. Secondly I can't help thinking that the situations at Pompey and Rangers are just the start of something much bigger and that there are a lot of chairman having sleepless nights right now.
Danny Broderick
985   Posted 08/03/2012 at 09:25:41

Report abuse

In the papers today, I have read that Birmingham look like going into administration unless they get promoted to the Premier League. Port Vale haven't been able to pay the players last month. And Portsmouth look like going out of business due to unpaid tax bills.
What is going on?
Amit Vithlani
991   Posted 08/03/2012 at 09:38:22

Report abuse

What's going on is that the business model of football clubs spending more than they earn (i.e. consistent operating losses) is coming home to roost. It can't last forever, and those supporters of EFC saying " look we are still here, so stop worrying" are totally wrong.

We may have avoided administration twice before but it should not be construed as reason enough to continue down the unsustainable path that this existing board is taking us.

BK out.
Andrew Ellams
993   Posted 08/03/2012 at 09:47:41

Report abuse

I think Everton will be safe from administration for a couple more years whilst we still have several on the field assets that are worth decent amounts of cash.

The downside to that is how long can we stay in the Premiership if we have to sell those players?
Phil McKeown
997   Posted 08/03/2012 at 10:00:07

Report abuse

Clubs like Celtic that are run well don't deserve to go into administration and won't cos they are run well.

The premier league is all about spending power , I for one have become a little disillusioned this season albeit I have renewed my season ticket for next yr .

UEFA fair play ruling won't impact us this much , it will be interesting to see how the slippery bastards like city find a way round it
Martin Mason
005   Posted 08/03/2012 at 10:22:25

Report abuse

No, we have only been in trouble since BK took over and no other clubs are in the same trouble as us not even Pompey and Rangers. I won't listen, I won''t listen, naaaahh, naaaahhh

Kenwright out, Moyes out
Danny Broderick
011   Posted 08/03/2012 at 10:51:41

Report abuse

I think the football authorities are going to have to impose some fiscal management, because if this continues the leagues are going to start falling apart.

A Scottish league without Rangers? They might as well close the league down because Celtic will win it every season. Already, I would guess half of the clubs in leagues 1 & 2 are struggling to survive.

What surprises me is that clubs have seemingly been allowed to rack up massive tax debts for instance. If that was the average man on the street, and the inland revenue got wind of it, they would have been after him like a shot. Because it is football clubs that have not been paying their tax, it seems they have been to blag their way out of paying... until now. How has this happened?

If Rangers disappear, it will open up a massive can of worms, and I wouldn't be surprised to see other clubs follow suit unfortunately. They have somehow ended up in a situation where they cannot service their debts, they owe the taxman millions etc, so it can only have one possible outcome.

Without wage caps, it is difficult to see how this will all end. Certainly the agents should be regulated, to stop some of the money pouring out of the game for starters...
Stephen Kenny
012   Posted 08/03/2012 at 11:19:34

Report abuse

It's a disgrace that at a point when there's never been so much money in the game clubs are going bust at a ridiculous rate.

Throw in players getting £200 grand a week when most junior footballers haven't even got proper fucking changing rooms on their local pitches and you've got a sport that's slowly killing itself from the inside out.

It's time the FA stood up to it's responsibilities before it's too late.
Andrew Ellams
014   Posted 08/03/2012 at 11:33:29

Report abuse

HMRC put a statement out recently that they believe around 8 EPL or former EPL clubs are bypassing their PAYE contributions by effectively making salary payments loans. Somebody is going to prison when this all comes out in the wash.
Tom Hughes
015   Posted 08/03/2012 at 11:32:17

Report abuse

Martin,
Yes, many are indeed sailing very close to the wind. But not all by any means. (Even mighty Blackpool made a £20m profit last yr despite being relegated). The difference between most of them and Everton is that they have succeeded in maximising their revenue streams by creating the infrastructure to help achieve that. Many clubs are now all that they can be...... from the minnows to the giants, new stadia and stands galore. By comparison we have stood still, and if it wasn't for Moyes making the most of the meagre morsels he's had, to gain the maximum points and revenue due to placing, this club would've probably sunk long ago.
Martin Mason
018   Posted 08/03/2012 at 12:14:52

Report abuse

Tom

How do you know that EFC hasn't maximised its revenue streams by creating the infrastructure to help achieve that. They sold players, they pay low wages and they were relegated. We could match that easily but is that what you want?
Colin Fitzpatrick
022   Posted 08/03/2012 at 12:43:41

Report abuse

lol, see it's another slack day in Kazakhstan!

"How do you know that EFC hasn't maximised its revenue streams by creating the infrastructure to help achieve that."

There are no words.
Tom Hughes
024   Posted 08/03/2012 at 12:42:30

Report abuse

Martin,
I know we haven't because I know we have just 11 low quailty boxes and the likes of spurs and villa (our most compatble peer group) have over 100 each....... I also know that we have easily the highest number of obstructed views again potentially damaging our income.
Anthony Jones
026   Posted 08/03/2012 at 12:44:51

Report abuse

Tom, #15. This revenue stream maximisation thing is founded upon the idea that football clubs are predominantly profit making.

Football is a business, this is true, but it is so far removed from conventional businesses that most comparisons are weak at best.

The continiung spouting of non-contextual misinformation on this site is not far removed from the most loaded second world war propaganda.

Surely it's best to focus on the clear examples of incompetence and lies, rather than regurgitating the Toffeeweb dogma that Everton could be a gold mine if only we were managed better. This is bullshit of the highest order.
Martin Mason
029   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:03:05

Report abuse

Colin@022
Then shut up if you have no words.
Richard Jones
030   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:04:48

Report abuse

Martin, Kenwright is a true blue fighting our corner doing the best he can blah blah fucking blah. I will not listen I will not FACE THE FUCKING FACTS!!
Colin Wainwright
031   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:10:15

Report abuse

Don't mention facts to Martin, Richard.

Red rag to a bull, mate.

Martin Mason
032   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:07:28

Report abuse

Tom

And you know that we could consistently fill how many more boxes? You are also confident that we could sell more seats if we got rid of the restricted views? Like you I?d like to see the ground improved with no restricted views and more boxes but who shall we sell to finance this?

You'll get it eventually mate. See Anthony's post above, he understands where we are.
Stephen Kenny
033   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:10:40

Report abuse

Anthony,

I don't think anybody believes we will match Man Utd as soon as this board is gone.

I do, like many, believe that we aren't maximising the potential to increase revenue through corporate sales and bringing a lot of our services in house. This would require an investment in infrastructure the current board won't make.
Tom Hughes
034   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:05:00

Report abuse

Anthony,
The only real bullshit is the insistence that any business does not need to maximise revenue streams........ surely. To reinforce this by peddling the myth that all clubs operate at a loss adds to the propaganda you. so despise. Suffice to say that if EFC had addressed some of those issues over the past decade then some of our peers operating figures mightve been matched by ourselves. The "doing nothing" option is short termism at best.
Tom Hughes
037   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:19:50

Report abuse

Martin, there are clubs in non-league with more boxes than us..... and if Villa can justify over 100 boxes and significantly bigger corporate provision I think I can safely say that we grossly under-perform. The fact that we have always sold out of unobstructed views for the past 10-15 yrs would also suggest losses there too. Reroofing of any stand could've addressed much of this.... and over the same period the cost would've been minimal. However any such policy would require a pro-active medium to long term strategy...... something distinctly and conspicuously absent throughout this period.
Martin Mason
039   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:41:43

Report abuse

Tom, other clubs are not us and they don't have a crumbling ground in Walton. Also what you believe you can safely say is only your opinion, I'd say that we under perform based on our history but not based on our current status. I ask again, who do you want to sell to fund ground improvements; there are no alternatives.
Andrew Ellams
040   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:46:33

Report abuse

When my dad, a lifelong blue was still working he used to quite often wine and dine overseas clients who were desperate to see some English football. It used to drive him mad that only once did he manage to get a box at Goodison and had to do most of his entertaining at Man U or unbelievably Bolton. These boxes are a vital part of the modern game, a huge revenue spinner and a must-have.

And surprisingly enough, the one time he did get to Goodison the service etc. was excellent and he even had Alan Whittle in there for the whole game which really impressed his guests (not sure if they knew who Alan Whittle was though).
Tom Hughes
043   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:48:23

Report abuse

Martin.... when the disparity is so great I believe I am on very safe ground..... btw how many players have spurs and villa sold to fund their more expensively acquired squads? How come their net spend is greater than ours despite having rebuilt everything? Walton is completely irrelevant.... have you ever walked around WHL? It would appear that you only want to compare us with clubs in very poor league and ones that are a fraction the size of us (rangers and pompey).... yet all clubs are different when I find 2 far more compatible examples and use actual numbers not just opinion. I ask again.... when are you going to back anything up?
Peter Foy
044   Posted 08/03/2012 at 13:57:20

Report abuse

I would be happy to sell players to fund stadium redevelopment but under no circumstances would I be happy for the current board to oversee the process.

They are not up to it and more importantly they simply cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the club as demonstrated during the Kirkby enquiry.
Anthony Jones
046   Posted 08/03/2012 at 14:24:29

Report abuse

Tom,

I appreciate your argument. I know these things aren't black and white. What I cannot abide is the consistent lack of balance in these threads, which is, I presume, what motivates Martin to continue challenging the convention.

If Everton build more boxes will they make a profit on them? It could take 10 years to break even, if not longer. The ONLY ground that is making a profit in the Premier League is The Emirates, which is heavily commercialised and in the capital city, where the bankers and similar professionals reside (infest?).

I just don't buy it (no pun intended) that a new stadium would drastically improve the balance sheet at EFC in the long run. Liverpool is a two club city, and they without doubt have the bigger brand. Therefore, is it not prudent of the board to put the money they do have into keeping the squad in the league rather than trying to increase the capacity at the ground by say 20%?

Also, how much money would the repatriation of the pies and shirts actually generate? This argument that the board should have invested in "infrastructure" lacks credibility because it is completely devoid of financial projections, and draws shallow comparisions to clubs under very different circumstances.
Colin Fitzpatrick
047   Posted 08/03/2012 at 14:28:56

Report abuse

Martian at 12:14 "How do you know that EFC hasn't maximised its revenue streams by creating the infrastructure to help achieve that."

Martian at 13:41 "Other clubs are not us and they don't have a crumbling ground in Walton."

You couldn't make it up.
Danny Broderick
051   Posted 08/03/2012 at 14:41:03

Report abuse

Anthony/Tom,

You know next weekend we are playing Sunderland in a sell out match? Well, without getting too technical, if the current board had got their finger out of their arses at any point over the last 12 years and put another tier on the Park End, we might have been able to sell several thousand extra tickets. This would have been a step towards maximising our revenue streams.
Chris James
062   Posted 08/03/2012 at 15:10:29

Report abuse

The problem with football today, which no one seems prepared to talk about is that the players are getting paid WAY TOO MUCH MONEY!

Forget about maximising revenue streams, seeking out sponsorships and winning trophies, the real issue is that the wage costs have gone through the roof in a totally unacceptable and unsustainable manner.

Since the onset of the premier league the BASIC pay has increased at a ludicrous rate from an average c.£60K p/year in 1991-2 to c.£1.16M p/year in 2009-10 (and it's still raising every year!).
And this is 'basic' before bonuses for wins, goals, appearances, 'loyalty', 'brand rights', signing-on fees, etc, which could add anything from 50-100% to these costs.


The numbers are still rising too (skewed even further by the financial idiocy at clubs in Manchester and Chelsea), to the extent that they represent an average of c.70% of premier league clubs turnover (and that's an average - many clubs are far higher - City's wage bill alone is something like 120% of it's turnover).
This figure doesn't factor in transfer fees (that have also risen exponentially in line), agent fees, insurance (big figures) or little things like actual running costs of stadia and transport
, never mind the servicing of massive debts that virtually every club has.
I'm not going to pretend football was ever a well run business, but right now it's a total basket case that's destroying itself from the inside and the biggest single culprit for this is player greed.
Next time your blood starts to boil about the bankers and their big bonuses for destroying our economy, please save a little wrath for the footballers who are destroying our favourite sport too!
Martin Mason
064   Posted 08/03/2012 at 15:33:29

Report abuse

Chris James, very good points.


Colin, time to take the tablets mate; ring the bell for nursie.

I'm sure that somewhere in you is a sensible constructive comment. I really look forward to reading it.
David Hallwood
066   Posted 08/03/2012 at 15:23:56

Report abuse

What Walter Smith's comment hightlight (if they are accurate of course) that we have in and around the brown stuff for some time. This is no Kenwright appologist rant but mis-management of the club goes back to the late 80's, the irony being is that Philip carter was the prime mover & shaker to establish the EPL, only for the Everton board under his chairmanship to be cut adrift from the big five (as we were part of prior to the EPL) and of course we've been there ever since.

But getting back to receivership, it is almost inevitable for one of the big clubs, or even several of the big clubs to go the way of Rangers, for me the most interesting situation is in Spain, and how much longer will the big two be able to live on permanent tick against a backdrop of financial austerity
Colin Fitzpatrick
071   Posted 08/03/2012 at 15:50:59

Report abuse

Chris you make a very valid observation on wages but we are where we are and unilaterally we're unable to buck the trend.

Anthony, you also make some fair points but I'd challenge you over your statement that the Emirates is the only "ground" making a profit. Despite its dilapidation I'd say Goodison , as a profit generator, is very efficient.

We own it outright so there are no additional costs other than staff costs, maintenance costs, pitch costs, matchday costs and normal utilities and overheads; the total is likely to be no more than £5m yet look at the return in terms of matchday and catering alone.

You're absolutely right when you question the possible return on any investment made by a new owner in the infrastructure; considering the possibility of the current owners making that investment is a complete waste of time.

No new owner is going to come in and hand over an enormous sum for a new stadium; the possible ROI would be remote, if any. This is why I've always favoured the phased redevelopment solution.

Everton do need to address the stadium situation but, in my opinion, the more pressing problem is addressing profitability.

Today the Nike deal has been officially announced, the worst kept secret in town. Cut away all the spin and it's obviously a better deal than the current Le Coq Sportif one which brings in just £650,000 a season.

These deals are always heralded as record breaking and partnerships that will make a difference to the club; they rarely do, the reality is they're heavily performance related, but undoubtedly this new deal is an improvement so it has to be seen as a positive.

For me the immediate problem for any new owner is to address the losses which are, in part, brought about through £5m of annual debt repayments and the effect that these still unexplained other operating costs are having on the business.

There?s still the best part of £25m payable on the Prudential securitisation loan and it?s not going to cost £25m to pay that off early, more like £40m, so we?re stuck with that one but with the right resources a new owner could clear approximately £2.5m a year in debt repayments.

These other operating costs really do need examining. Everton told the fans last year that 85p in the pound ends up back at Finch Farm, which is £70m of our £82m turnover. To illustrate how ridiculous a statement this is you need to consider two things. Firstly, if you strip out the wages element from that figure you?re left with the operating cost of Finch Farm which, if true, is £38,000 a day. The second thing to consider is that Liverpool operate their academy in Kirkby for £8,000 a day and Everton operated Bellefield AND Netherton for a similar sum prior to 2008. The Finch Farm lease costs £3,000 a day; what could we possibly be doing with the other £35,000?
Paul Watson
076   Posted 08/03/2012 at 16:13:26

Report abuse

Getting back to the point of going into administration and specifically Rangers, how have they gotten themselves into so much trouble with HMRC?

There is the outstanding payment of around £10m that Rangers have built up by not paying their outstanding PAYE to the exchequer - because they are skint. But lurking in the background is a far bigger bill that could be up to £70m due to the way that Rangers could have paid some of their players.

In high profile tax-avoidance the government/civil service have often backed off from confrontation due to the technicalities and often sheer brilliance of the opposition. Think OJ Simpson and the team he collected against what the the state could bring to bear.

They have decided on a quite simple line of attack: You have paid out x amount in this tax year and so should have paid us y in contributions. You haven't so we want the difference. This scenario could seemingly affect a large number of clubs ? maybe even our own.

In the present economic climate HMRC do not appear to be in the mood to put their fangs away ? why should they? This story has only just started.
Anthony Jones
077   Posted 08/03/2012 at 16:25:58

Report abuse

Colin, #71,

I apologise, I should have said new stadium; i.e. the next generation stadia that have been built within the Premier League era. I like your idea of phased redevelopment, and I do not support this board.

Chris, #62, tells the inconvenient truth that is bigger and more dangerous than Kenwright, Johnson, or any other chairman or board, however. The players and their agents are destroying the game, and so rich benefactors have to be brought on in for any hope of continued success.
Tom Hughes
081   Posted 08/03/2012 at 16:25:51

Report abuse

Anthony,

The point regarding justifying new infrastructure is a medium to long-term one. Just as our forefathers sanctioned the building of expensive new stands when they could've easily settled for cheap less spectacular ones and smaller capacity..... their speculation was rewarded. That said, new facilities need not take 10 years to realise profit.... Exec boxes can be taken up by multi-year high-earning contracts. They can also have several non-matchday revenue opportunities such as conversion to hotel/meeting/conference rooms.... and anciliary lounges are also multi-purpose giving year round potential that simply isn't there at present. As Colin said.... many stadia, including our own already produce profits. It is all already paid for, apart from the running costs which applies regardless. Many more are also profit-making, and it isn't just the Emirates which I don't think is yet fully paid for. The cost for building new facilities need not come from the same pot as team building at all. It can be from a wholly different financial source. New development partners can be attracted, and costs managed over the life of the new structures. This is why so many have been rebuilt and so many still are:

http://www.footballgroundguide.com/developments.htm

"I just don't buy it (no pun intended) that a new stadium would drastically improve the balance sheet at EFC in the long run."

So for instance, do you believe that the 55,000 seater Kings Dock stadium wouldn't have increased our revenue substantially? Or that your example of the Emirates hasn't produced an income that dwarfs Highbury's several times over? I believe the middle tier alone generates more income than the old Highbury.

"Liverpool is a two club city, and they without doubt have the bigger brand. Therefore, is it not prudent of the board to put the money they do have into keeping the squad in the league rather than trying to increase the capacity at the ground by say 20%"

Arsenal are equally a much bigger brand than Spurs.... that hasn't stopped Spurs in wanting to greatly increase their capacity. The point is however that capacity can be added fairly cheaply.... and there has been additional demand demonstrated over the last 10-15yrs.... with a massive disparity in the amount of Exec/Corporate provision elsewhere, suggesting that there are real opportunities to be exploited that haven't been. These are comparable clubs, their circumstances are only different because these clubs have acted to address the issues, and ours hasn't. There is no reason why Everton FC should have just 11 boxes while Villa and Spurs have over 100 each..... 2 team city or not.
James Flynn
084   Posted 08/03/2012 at 17:24:25

Report abuse

Tom (081) ? Funny reading this. Basic Sports Franchise Revenue-Generation 101. Yet it seems so far away under current ownership. Like 6 or 8 bridges too far.
James Flynn
085   Posted 08/03/2012 at 17:36:54

Report abuse

Anthony (077) - "players and their agents are destroying the game, and so rich benefactors have to be brought on in for any hope of continued success".

Got that backwards I'm afraid. It's the rich "benefactors" causing the problems. A player cannot be paid even a halfpenny more than an owner will pay them.
James Flynn
088   Posted 08/03/2012 at 17:41:08

Report abuse

Chris (062) - You haven't mentioned the dramatic effect on wages brought about by the massive, unprecedented really, increase in television revenue. Players shouldn't get their cut of that money? TV revenue is the main reason for the increase in wages.

Toss in, as you mention, "skewed even further by the financial idiocy at clubs in Manchester and Chelsea", and here we sit. What would we have players do, refuse money offered? I wouldn't. How many would?
Noel Lynam
106   Posted 08/03/2012 at 18:06:36

Report abuse

Martin,

You ask "How do you know that EFC hasn't maximised its revenue streams by creating the infrastructure to help achieve that?"

I live in Ireland. I get over to a handful of games each season. Not all Irish Evertonians are lucky enough to get over that often, some not at all. And there's a very sizeable Everton fan base over here.

When I do go, I generally plan to buy some merchandise. In recent years, I have noticed more and more of what I look for is not in stock. Invariably I end up picking up something additional I didn't plan on buying too ? some training gear, perhaps a t-shirt or a top. Mostly impulse buys when simply browsing.

It is virtually impossible to buy any Everton merchandise in Dublin. Not even a jersey That is because Everton Football Club have outsourced their merchandising to a third party who do not retail in Ireland. Yes, they retail online but why would I, or anyone, want to pay additional credit card fees and delivery charges?

There is a generation of kids whose dads, uncles etc try to get them into Everton at a young age. Alas, with the club having no visible presence over here and kids being impressionable, it's sometimes a losing battle when they see a shiny Chelsea, Man City or Spurs jersey in their local sports shop.

This is just one country where the aforementioned third party merchandise distribution company do not operate. We've had (and have) prominent USA internationals in our first team yet (to my knowledge) a similar issue of little or no merchandise available to buy in USA. What's more galling about that is that soccer's popularity is on the up in USA and many fans have no real reason to latch on to one particular Premier League club. Simple marketing over there would result in the club tapping into a revenue stream, where fans buy our gear simply because of Landon, Tim or even Joe Max.

I know if it were available, I would buy more Everton merchandise here. I know there are hundreds, maybe thousands, of others who would too. I know Ireland is not the only country where we'd sell more. That's how I know the club has not maximised its revenue streams.
John Keating
112   Posted 08/03/2012 at 18:50:28

Report abuse

Martin.

"How do you know that EFC hasn't maximised its revenue streams by creating the infrastructure to help achieve that?" ? What a fucking stupid statement!!
I know your body is in the Khazi but are you yourself in the real world?? Idiot !!
Stephen Kenny
116   Posted 08/03/2012 at 18:56:27

Report abuse

Martin I'll save you the bother.

Noel,

You can't prove there's thousands of Evertonians who would like to buy Everton merchandise in Ireland.

How do you know it's not just you and the club wouldn't lose money by trying this?

Further, it's likely the club has investigated this and found no case to support your claim... etc, etc, etc.
Bobby Thomas
117   Posted 08/03/2012 at 19:07:40

Report abuse

Typing with an arched eyebrow catches up with Martin "The Facts" Mason.

Bobby Thomas
118   Posted 08/03/2012 at 19:11:41

Report abuse

Stephen, I certainly agree on the "thousands" aspect.

However, as its commonly accepted Everton have outsourced all merch operations to Kitbag, who don't trade over there, perhaps it's a possibility it's not just Noel?
John Keating
121   Posted 08/03/2012 at 19:23:16

Report abuse

Bobby. Think Stephen is taking the piss out of Martin who comes out continually with stupid statements. "Prove it" springs to mind!
Stephen Kenny
122   Posted 08/03/2012 at 19:23:42

Report abuse

Bobby,

Don't be ridiculous. This board wouldn't be millionaires missing tricks like that one.

I'm confident Bill and the team have looked at it and seen a dud.

The fact our city has countless links to Ireland and some of its most famous and best footballers have worn our colours means nothing in this day and age.

We are where we are etc, etc, etc.
Stephen Kenny
123   Posted 08/03/2012 at 19:27:27

Report abuse

Bobby,

Sarcasm doesn't come across well on here. Unless you've got Eugene's litary skills.
Bobby Thomas
125   Posted 08/03/2012 at 19:26:50

Report abuse

Fair does!!:-)

Think there were more than a few tempted, I was gonna go there myself but then.... should not try to cook, watch Man City take stuff in and then post!!

I cannot definitively prove any of these events are taking place, however, despite the burden resting exclusively with me to do so.
Andy Crooks
132   Posted 08/03/2012 at 19:37:19

Report abuse

I have experienced a similar problem to Noel. I had a relative over from Canada who wanted to spend quite a bit but simply couldn't. I am quite certain that this is a fact.

The failure to capitalize on our American players is utter ineptitude. Now, that is an opinion. However, it is based on the experiences of five people I know in the USA who are Evertonians. Of course it is possible that they are the only US Evertonians who have experienced difficulty in spending money on Everton and the only five who feel are profile is disappointingly low. I suppose ,therefore, that until I have spoken to every Evertonian in the USA it will have to remain only an opinion.
Gavin Ramejkis
138   Posted 08/03/2012 at 19:17:39

Report abuse

Stephen, want a little logic test on the marketing genius at Everton FC? A little while ago, there was this kind of minor celebration and influx of tourism to the tune of millions in this city called Liverpool for the Capital of Culture. Now this wasn't suddenly dropped onto Liverpool but awarded well in advance and the whole place planned and made itself ready to squeeze every penny they could from the increased tourist trade and footfall that brought.

Ask yourself what Everton did? Hmmm... remember it closing its city centre store, thus having no presence there whatsoever? Remember it finally opening a store in Liverpool One just as the whole thing came to an end ? yeah, that YEAR FUCKING LONG celebration and influx of tourists waiting to be tapped into.

Now think back and ask yourself again, would you seriously stand by a claim that "maybe the club investigated this and found no case to support", I wouldn't trust the current incumbents with the half-time oranges, they'd fuck that up too.
Colin Fitzpatrick
148   Posted 08/03/2012 at 21:05:57

Report abuse

Paul #76

You?re more than likely right, it?s just the start.

What Rangers have been doing, paying a proportion of their player?s salaries, typically image rights, into Employee Benefit Trusts, is a perfectly legal form of tax avoidance but my understanding is that the revenue discovered that even players with no image rights deals, at Rangers and other clubs, were having a portion of their salary paid into EBT?s thereby avoiding 50% income tax, national insurance and, for the club, employers contribution.

This wasn?t tax avoidance, this was tax evasion, a very serious issue, and it?s been happening at many clubs up and down the land for years. It really is taking the piss when a league two player is having naming rights paid into an EBT and you can guess whose idea it was to start using these devices!!

I understand that, last year, through the FA, fifteen premiership clubs came to an arrangement with the revenue and that eight are now being seriously investigated.

The revenue have had enough of clubs and their owners flouting the UK tax laws and they?re harassing the life out of them as the clubs clearly believe there?s one law for them and another for the rest of us.
Gavin Ramejkis
155   Posted 08/03/2012 at 21:36:05

Report abuse

The old tax dodge by players has been going on for years, wasn't it Dennis Bergkamp that was paid a pittance of his salary at Arsenal and the remainder went offshore to avoid paying the tax on it way back in 1995 as the first in the series of this Image Rights fiddle, that case along with David Platt vs the revenue was lost back in 2000.
Gerard Carroll
160   Posted 08/03/2012 at 22:21:23

Report abuse

From the Premier League down, soccer is full of corruption. I think there are quite a few clubs who could be in big trouble before Everton... one not so far away either!

What about young Olson giving £11mill to old Olson? Any of you explain that one??
Jamie Barlow
162   Posted 08/03/2012 at 22:23:11

Report abuse

Gavin, I think Stephen was just taking over from Martin while he was absent. I wouldn't take what he said seriously.
Greg Anderson
183   Posted 09/03/2012 at 00:32:33

Report abuse

It really is a shame that so many otherwise bright people on this site are so blind in their desire to scapegoat a single individual that they completely ignore the big picture. As Chris, Anthony, and especially James Flynn (85, 88) have pointed, the situation is far more complex and systemic than others seem to want to see. Even if we were now playing in Kings Dock, maximizing all revenue streams, and selling millions of shirts in places like the US and Ireland, it would not make a dramatic difference to our plight.

So long as the levels of player wages/transfers are premised on the existence of teams like Chelsea and Man City, with limitless cash, and so long as we do not have that kind of money, we will always struggle to compete and we will never win. This is not to make excuses for the failures of BK, which are real enough. But even had he completely "succeeded", we would be little better off. Short of living of ill-gotten gains from places like Siberia and the Gulf, the only way we will ever compete is if the whole structure of the game is changed dramatically, TV money, transfer fees, player wages, the lot.
Stan Blood
184   Posted 09/03/2012 at 00:46:29

Report abuse

Andrew Ellams - I'd like to share your optimism regarding not going into administration, but I have a really bad feeling about the summer...if the books where bad last time out then don't be surprised if they are even worse this time.

The club needs to be sold as fast as possible..we need funds in the summer to replace a massively aging squad..unless we plan to get relegated..lose the Sky TV money and then into admin that way.

I'm dreading the summer.
Gavin Ramejkis
188   Posted 09/03/2012 at 00:55:51

Report abuse

Greg the logic simply doesn't make sense, if we were at the KD and maximising revenues as you say then compare and contrast and explain why it wouldn't make any impact on the club's current plight?

Status Quo at Goodison Park

Marketing and merchandising below our peer group
Catering outsourced and little impact on the bottom line
Corporate offerings - 11 boxes
Non match day revenue - virtually non existent
Selling players to service the £5m a year debt burden

Kings Dock with revenue streams exploited

Capacity increased to 55k above the current so ticket sales even with a 5-10% pick up on current sales would be a margin increase - tick one
Marketing and merchandising aligned to peer group takings - tick two
Corporate offerings - increased boxes and facilities - tick three
Non match day revenue - take a look at the calendar for the echo arena which is smaller than the KD would have been - tick four
No immediate requirement to sell players to service debts but rather sales to refresh the squad as other teams do and make profits which could be used to invest into the squad or club infrastructure - tick five

One blip would be the debt of the new stadium but leveraged against the increased capacity and other exploited revenue streams not beyond the realms to think this would be capable of breaking even.

I cant see the logic where scenario KD and a properly ran business over GP and the current shambles couldn't be a better business model?
Greg Anderson
196   Posted 09/03/2012 at 01:33:17

Report abuse

Gavin, I completely agree with you that we could have a better business model and that it could make a difference. I just don't think that the scale of that difference would be sufficient to help us truly compete with the Man Citys and Chelseas, who live in a completely different financial universe.

Think of it this way. Many people complain about the inequalities in Formula !, because usually only two or three out of 10 or 12 teams can ever really win. But there at least all teams use basically the same kind of car; some are just a little crucial bit quicker than others. The Premiership, on the other hand, is like Ferrari and Maclaren F1 cars competing against teams driving Ford Focuses. Add to that, Everton's rusty old 1995 Ford Focus can't even get a few F1-type custom parts to boost its chances even a little, because "Ferrari" and "Maclaren" have set the prices for these parts and put them completely out of almost everyone else's reach. I think it is hard for people to get their heads around the sheer scale and structural nature of the "gap" in the Prem. So while it's totally fair to bash Bill for not updating our Ford Focus, even the latest and best Ford Focus can never compete with a Ferrari.

That said, I freely admit I don't know all the exact figures involved. This is just my general impression from many years of, I hope, thoughtful observation. Things like Man City just now doing a "kit sponsorship" deal for 400m quid!
Eric Myles
197   Posted 09/03/2012 at 01:49:41

Report abuse

Greg #183 "So long as the levels of player wages/transfers are premised on the existence of teams like Chelsea and Man City, with limitless cash, and so long as we do not have that kind of money, we will always struggle to compete and we will never win."

I know what you mean but it's not strictly true except in the case where Everton would be competing against the likes of City or Chelsea for the top players eg. Messi.

As that's not likely to happen we are competing for players that the moneybags teams are not interested in so there is no inflationary affect on wages because of a couple of rich teams.
Martin Mason
198   Posted 09/03/2012 at 02:25:01

Report abuse

John Keating@121

It's essential that all people who post strong opinions are challenged to provide a basis for those opinions. In that way we find out what is realistic and what is fantasy.

I believe that most here are now coming around more and more to my position. For example, it seems that only a few are now saying that just changing the board and tweaking the business model is going to make any significant difference to our fortunes. I also see fewer and fewer who really believe that we are going to get the benefactor that many used to believe was out there waiting for us. I would also hope that many see that there is no bogey man BK who has single handedly run the club down. EFC have operated in massively changed financial conditions over the last 10 years and EFC has unfortunately shown that because of what and where it is it has not and, without a benefactor, cannot have the financial muscle to compete at the highest level.

Many believe that EFC are negligent because they don't have a plan B (or even a plan A) but I disagree. I believe that they have a plan B and a plan C. This summer will probably see which plan they take. It may not be pleasant but I'm sure that real Evertonians world wide will continue to support the team.
Tom Hughes
205   Posted 09/03/2012 at 04:11:11

Report abuse

Martin,
That's comfortably the biggest load of tosh you've written yet..... so, well done that takes some doing.

People have demonstrated glaring defficiencies using figures and examples and comparisons.... you say the club has various plans A, B and C out of completely nothing. Even the club have never stated such an abundence of options and ideas. "There is no plan B" was the famous quote when their plan A was slowly unravelling into farce.... or have you conveniently forgotten this? You continue to post pure fantasy devoid of all facts and never counter any specific points with your own stats or figures.

The parting shot that true Evertonians will still support the team is laughable. You don't even go. You also like to confuse supporting the team/club with supporting BK and his cardboard cut out board. No-one is supporting your view point on here. Fans have left in their thousands yet you seem to be completely oblivious inventing non-arguments to excuse the serial, well documented cock-ups and outright failures.
Martin Mason
206   Posted 09/03/2012 at 04:58:50

Report abuse

Tom
You have never understood any post that I?ve ever made. I?ve explained why I don?t need to produce facts, figures and statistics for any points I?ve raised but as you don?t actually read what I say you wouldn?t understand that. I?ve also never seen a response that has specifically refuted anything that I?ve said and I?ve admitted that there have been deficiencies so what do I get from posts that point out deficiencies. Most of course are opinions but that is OK

Regarding EFCs options A, B and C which Everton are pursuing are:

A. We sell to new owners who invest the money needed to make us great again. This is the fantasy option.

B. We pull ourselves out of the recession we are in by building up a strong squad (by selling assets and borrowing), improving performance, increasing revenue by increasing gates, merchandise sales and getting into Europe. We eventually use the additional revenue to pay off debt and to gradually improve our infrastructure in stages which I believe is the only way. This is the organic option and the one that the club has been trying for several years and which has now failed as it failed Leeds and as it must always fail if the manager doesn?t deliver the goods.

C. We stop selling assets and borrowing and run the club completely within its means selling players to reduce debt, to rebuild the stadium in phases and to buy better value players. This means accepting that EFC will significantly reduce its on-field performance and possibly be in danger of relegation. This is the realistic option and probably the route the club is following now. We have to survive and this is possibly the only option

A, is what deluded fans think we will have if we can just get BK out, B we?ve tried and failed and C is where we are at now. I?m sure that the board has reviewed many options around C to maximise revenue and are looking to implement those that are cost effective. These would include encouraging new fans to come in by reducing the price for their tickets.

Regarding your last point, there are few Everton fans who?ve supported the club as long or as well as myself and I?ve explained why I don?t go to the games although I go when I can and I stand by my comments. Option C will surely lose us the more fickle of our fan base but real Evertonians are more than that. We will maintain a strong fan base even during our down cycles as we have always done maintaining unity in diversity. When Trust Everton gets going I will support the club in real terms, not by giving it lots of jaw but in real money terms.

Greg Anderson
207   Posted 09/03/2012 at 05:22:58

Report abuse

Type or paste your comment here. No txt-speak, please try to use proper grammar, all-lowercase posts are likely to be deleted
Paul Wharton
208   Posted 09/03/2012 at 05:44:08

Report abuse

Martin
It is true we are coming around to your way of thinking, so I am going now to book myself into the asylum. goodbye.
Paul Wharton
Greg Anderson
209   Posted 09/03/2012 at 05:39:32

Report abuse

Eric, I don't think you can separate teams economically like that. Take the example of Newcastle this year, a team that cannot normally compete with the big boys. But they have done pretty well this year, at least in part because of players they were able to buy with the ridiculous money they got for Carroll. And the reason Liverpool paid ridiculous money for Carroll was because they sold Torres to Chelsea for even more ridiculous money. So yes, only one or two teams could have competed in the "market" for Torres at the time. But the actual purchase of Torres for ridiculous sums had financial reverberations all through the league, as it were, distorting the entire economic picture. It's all connected. The presence of teams like Man City and Chelsea changes everything for everyone. And for Everton to acquire a relatively modest player like Carroll may now require up to 35m just to buy him, since a new league-wide benchmark has been set. Obviously we can't compete in a world like that.
Martin Mason
210   Posted 09/03/2012 at 06:03:44

Report abuse

Paul - One must do what one must do.

Greg - Good points
Eric Myles
211   Posted 09/03/2012 at 05:57:07

Report abuse

Greg, you could say the same for our sales of Rooney and Lescott and the subsequent purchases of our 'record signings' at the time.

Also your point falls down because nobody in their right mind would pay £35m for a mediocre player like Carroll.

My point is that if someone like Messi for example were available on a free and we were interested in signing him he could say "Well City are paying £200,000 per week, you match that and I'll sign for you" whereas someone like McFadden could not say the same thing.
Eric Myles
213   Posted 09/03/2012 at 06:07:18

Report abuse

Remember also Greg that Newcastle sold Nolan, Barton, Enrique and Ireland and only bought Ba for £6m who has made an impact for them.

So I doubt they have spent any of the £35m they got for Carroll so that is not the reason they are doing well.
Tom Hughes
216   Posted 09/03/2012 at 06:32:03

Report abuse

Martin,
Once again.... complete drivel intended to mask pure ignorance. If you are making something remotely resembling an argument based on your opinion, you then need to support it with facts relating to the issues. This is then an informed opinion. Simply spouting paragraph after paragraph of nonsense backed by nothing is known as talking bollocks.

I, and several others have responded directly to every point you've made. Sometimes sentence by nonsensical sentence. You have never done this. Not because you don't have to, but because you can't. You have repeated the process in every post and every thread ignoring the facts everytime..... because the facts never fit the stance you've built on nothing.
Greg Anderson
217   Posted 09/03/2012 at 06:48:40

Report abuse

Eric, sorry, but I really don't understand why it's so hard to see that teams like MCFC and CFC chucking money around like they do completely changes the financial playing field for everyone. In a world where Messi could "only" get, say, 100,000/week, someone like Arteta would get, say, 40,000, and we could afford him. In a world where Messi can command 200,000, Arteta is paid 60-70,000 and we can't afford him. Fact is, at the current wage levels, we simply cannot afford enough elite players to win anything. In fact we can't afford any truly elite players at all. And even if we develop them ourselves, we can't afford to keep them, because of the ludicrously big money City and CFC can offer them. But feel free to disagree.
Eric Myles
219   Posted 09/03/2012 at 07:02:46

Report abuse

Greg,

just because Messi gets paid more than Arteta doesn't mean that Arteta could get more money.

It's like me saying to my boss "I can get paid 15% more salary at Samsung" (which I can) and him saying "well fcuk off there then" (which he did). But the truth is that Samsung don't want me, and Barcelona don't want Arteta, so neither of us could get an increase in pay.

You said it yourself 'elite players' We are not in that market so the players we ARE in the market for are no more or less expensive because City have money.

So the fact that City can afford Messi doesn't mean that McFadden will get better paid. It only means that Messi will get better paid as Chelsea and City try to outbid each other for his services.
Tom Hughes
220   Posted 09/03/2012 at 06:57:33

Report abuse

Gregg.... your Newcastle argument refutes your original point to some extent. The point is the money that these clubs plough into their squads is then recycled intoother teams..... some will spend wisely some won't. Newcastle however also benefit from the fact that previous boards buillt the stadium to harness the support and generate turnover to exploit upturns in on field performance. They have grown the club throughout the premiership era. We have, through a policy of doing nothing simply tread water in comparison. Our only saving grace has been Moyes' abilities to perform relative miracles despite our boards inaction..... papering over the ineptitude of an ownership that has delivered absolutely nothing in the same era. Whichever way you look at it, and by whatever comparison you measure it, this board have only ever demonstrated that they are simply not up to the task.
Paul Andrews
221   Posted 09/03/2012 at 07:34:14

Report abuse

Martin,

I don't post very often as i prefer to enjoy the debate. One thing that strikes me is your acceptance of mediocrity regarding Everton Football Club. Can you explain that please?

Thanks in advance
Martin Mason
224   Posted 09/03/2012 at 08:14:46

Report abuse

Tom, I've pointed out exactly why I don't need to quote chapter and verse on most things I post and why what I say is rarely opinion. I choose my words carefully. That you can't understand what I've said is your problem not mine. Do you see that even now you aren't actually refuting anything I actually say just blustering and fog spraying. Newcastle had benefactors btw so they aren't a comparison for EFC.

Read Greg's post above, he understands exactly where Everton are at the moment
Greg Anderson
225   Posted 09/03/2012 at 08:07:44

Report abuse

Gentlemen, I really don't disagree with much of the detailed substance of your remarks. Where I differ is in trying to see EFC's plight macro-economically rather than micro-economically. Everton is just a small, but integral part of a large industry, which is itself connected in a myriad complex ways to an extremely complex globalized world. The conditions EFC must operate in are continually and dramatically affected by forces that are far beyond the club's control. I don't think we control our own destiny nearly as much as you seem to think we do. I don't think it's hard too hard to see this, but I'd have to write a huge book to actually "prove" it you. So I'll just leave it at that for now.
Tom Hughes
228   Posted 09/03/2012 at 08:24:14

Report abuse

Martin.... once again your ignorance shines through. Check out how newcastle raised funds to redevelop their stadium not once but twice. Then apply the same logic to how EFC could've achieved greater things for less at GP. You won't because you can't. You invent hypothtical claptrap and try to pass it off as argument...... always ignoring the facts. You regularly contradict when glaring discepencies are pointed out. There is nothing to "understand" when there is nothing of substance submitted.
Tom Hughes
230   Posted 09/03/2012 at 08:33:45

Report abuse

Greg,
It all sounds like a monty python meaning of life lyric. The points made though relate more to what the club would/should be had better strategy/planning been applied. We have been left behind because of these mistakes and ineptitude and the best efforts of the manager in giving our best league placings in years has been wasted..... resulting in us barely staying afloat, in an ancient stadium, with mounting debt and weakened/aging squad. That cannot be levelled at all our peers who have all operated in the same economic climate. Yes there are other forces and influences..... but the facts remain. Too many mistakes and missed opportunities all well documented and irrefutable. At no point have this lot demonstrated an ability or even inclination to address the problems. Others have..... and that is why we're lagging behind. Only Moyes has made any difference and increasingly his best efforts are becoming ineffective. A few inspirational loans may save this season...... hopefully we can even win the cup. But the over-riding problems will remain.
Martin Mason
231   Posted 09/03/2012 at 09:05:53

Report abuse

Tom, I'm not a librarian for you mate. Link us on how Newcastle financed their new ground and I'll tell you whether it was the same position the EFC are in. If it involved no external finance then it is. Also, your constant contention that EFCs management is guilty of mistakes and ineptitude is your opinion only, please remember that. I know exactly why EFC has no money, so answerme. Who do you want to sell or ddo you know how to raise money for the club?
Stephen Kenny
235   Posted 09/03/2012 at 09:30:04

Report abuse

Sarcasm Font Gav!!!
Tom Hughes
236   Posted 09/03/2012 at 09:27:17

Report abuse

Martin,
No, be your own librarian and do some research before spouting anything that suits. As ever you simply stated a broadbrush comment regarding something you evidently know nothing about. You offered this as an argument you once again can't back up.


As regards the almost endless list of well documented cock-ups, you yourself have accepted them several times in several threads.... or are you contradicting yourself once again?

Christine Foster
239   Posted 09/03/2012 at 09:36:56

Report abuse

Martin, you appear to have taken a stance that unless it can be totally proven, any allegation, comment or opinion is baseless. as is your own for the very same premise, I chose my words carefully too.

Whilst a forum allows everybody to state an opinion, fact based or not, one cannot ignore the current plight we are in as a club or the fact that there has been no investment in infrastructure, that the directors, wealthy or not, have no intention to fund anything to do with the running of the club. BTW that is stated fact not opinion.

I do agree with your all options for the future but would add that there are better options out there, but they are dependent on who wants to fashion a deal. They will have the upper hand ONLY if the directors WANT to sell.

I posted on another thread a response to Directors duties which you did not come back on, but to surmise, it is their DUTY to put the club before their own self interests. So let me ask you this, why have they (to a man) stated that they have no intention of selling or diluting their shares? That is a deriliction of Directors duties by placing their interests in front of the club.

I have stuck to the facts, backed by legislation, and arrived at a conclusion that is hard to ignore. The directors of this club have, and continue to, put their self interests before the future of the club.

That puts the future of the club in doubt. They are causing, have caused and will continue to cause the demise of the club as long as they continue
Stephen Kenny
240   Posted 09/03/2012 at 09:33:01

Report abuse

Eric/Greg

I agree with both of you to some extent. There's no doubt that wages have been driven up to ridiculous levels. Whether this is by top paying teams or teams like Pompey and the shite trying to get to the top table is debateable. One things for sure if EFC tried to pay players what the club can afford and keep money back to build the club we'd be a championship side within three years.
Derek Thomas
242   Posted 09/03/2012 at 09:21:15

Report abuse

Martin 206; ' you've never understood any post I've ever made '...That's coz you've talked contradictrory, wind up, absolute bollocks.

Tom ( and others ) I urge you to starve this wind up merchant of the attention oxygen he craves. Read his post if you must just to keep current on his antics. Treat him as a modern day 'Professor' Stanley Unwin...clever at what he does ( which is basically a party trick taken to the Nth degree ) a talker of plausible sounding but ultimately incomprehensable gobbledygook.

He can only wind you up if you let him. Life's too short. He isn't interested in to and fro debate or finding out things, just taking the piss to hear the sound of his own cyber voice and fill his own boredom.

Ignore him and he may go away, but I doubt it.
Martin Mason
244   Posted 09/03/2012 at 10:12:38

Report abuse

Derek, I like to see a little bit of intelligence injected into the debates. You should try discussing the topic it's far better. I say that Tom has never understood a post that I've made because he has never reponded to anything I've actually said and has kept on repeating the same old stuff to me.

If you'll point out the bits where I'm talking bollocks or where I'm patently incorrect then I'll give you a response otherwise stop trolloing and trying to wind me up.
John Keating
245   Posted 09/03/2012 at 10:07:20

Report abuse

Derek. Spot on. Martin requires everyone else to "prove" their statements whilst he spouts his "opinions" as if he has researched them fully, and in his deluded world they are thus "facts"
Still waiting for him to prove his statement earlier that implies Everton have maximised their revenue streams.
And to prove his Plan C is the only option remaining.
Tom Hughes
249   Posted 09/03/2012 at 10:22:46

Report abuse

Martin,

I've cut and pasted and answered each remark. On several occasions and on different threads The evidence is there for all to read..... hence the reason why you are being mocked openly by several posters now. As with the current board your flush appears to have bust........ again!
Derek Thomas
250   Posted 09/03/2012 at 10:26:41

Report abuse

You might 'like' to 'see' it Martin-Stanley Unwin-Mason, you don't 'show' it though. Like I said previously, away and f*ck spiders wind up merchant.Your continued antics prove my point, if you told me it was Wednesday I would check to see if it wasn't Tuesday or Thursday.

I for one have too much experience to argue with fools as the bystanders won't be able to tell the difference.

Your sussed.
Derek Thomas
253   Posted 09/03/2012 at 10:37:08

Report abuse

Martin 244 ( or should that be 442 ) point out the bits in which you are talking bollocks?? that will be the bits between your first word and your last word then.

Sussed.

Sorted.

Job done.

End of...as if, you can't help yourself... just watch him ladies and gentlemen, he won't be able to not make a smartarsed reply.
Martin Mason
256   Posted 09/03/2012 at 10:16:54

Report abuse

Christine, my stance is that anybody who states a strong opinion, for example accusations of gross negligence or deliberately running the club down, should also have a very strong quantification for saying that. I don?t ask for proof only quantification that a statement has a high probability of being true. The same standards apply to me but I don?t make outrageous allegations that I can?t back up. I say things like, ?It is possible that - - - ,? or ?An alternative is - - - ?, I quote three options for recovery and they are patently valid options. I would hope that if I ever spout an opinion as fact you will pull me up. Opinions are not facts and they are not sacrosanct, they are there to be challenged and that is what discussion boards are for or do you feel we should have a standard opinion?

I have stated many times that the club is in trouble and many reasons for this that don?t amount to the claims of willful negligence. I have also stated the absolute fact that the board has no obligation whatsoever to invest its own money into the club.

There is not a shred of evidence that the directors don?t want to sell. In section 17 of the DK enquiry it is accepted as fact that the club has been for sale for years and that was one reason for turning down the application.

In the other thread I came back to you next post with the strong disagreement that they have to put the club before themselves. I?m a director of a company, it is absolutely for my benefit and I can run it into the ground if I wish. Again though even if it were so please show unequivocally what that they have done that was patently in their own interests and not the club?s or that they have no intention of selling. You quote the dilution of shares as somehow being tied into the selling but it isn?t. Any rights issue will dilute their holdings and they are bang within their rights not to do it.

Christine, hope you don't mind me saying but what you actually did as far as I could see was stated what you saw as the directors duties and then your opinions of why the board have broken those duties. That isn?t the same as proving they are negligent by statement of facts. If they have broken any laws then prove it and I?ll help you prosecute them. Anything? Anybody?
The last paragraph is your opinion and that is my point. Do you not believe that there could be an alternative to mismanagement but perhaps that EFC are a small club, way out of its depth and desperately trying to survive and be successful in a world where costs are increasing exponentially and yet revenue is increasing only linearly or less? Do you not think it?s possible that a new board can?t do better without the benefactor?

Anyway, I?ll discuss any issue but best keep the issues down to a couple a post. I'm genuine in my beliefs and my absolute wish for EFC to get out of this mess
John Daley
261   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:08:04

Report abuse

 "I won't listen, I won''t listen, naaaahh, naaaahhh"

Why not just say this in every post and save us all a lot of time, tedium and retina rape?

In the space of a couple of weeks you've rapidly become a raging self parody. Logging on and seeing your name about 26 times under a thread is like switching on the tv only to be met by the utterly pointless, deluded, self regarding shite spouted by Svens ex-swamp donkey Nancy Dell'olio.

Nancy: "Women and men, they both love me"

Martin: "..most here are now coming around more and more to my position".

Nancy: "I don't know anyone who does as much as I do"

Martin: ".. there are few Everton fans who've supported the club as long or as well as myself"

Nancy:  "I think in my life I've really vindicated Ana Karenina"

Martin: "Many believe that EFC are negligent because they don't have a plan B (or even a plan A) but I disagree. I believe that they have a plan B and a plan C"

Nancy: "The best way to save money is by continuing to spend money"

Martin: "your constant contention that EFCs management is guilty of mistakes and ineptitude is your opinion only, please remember that. I know exactly why EFC has no money"

Nancy: "There has not been any other woman for a minute in Sven's mind."

Martin: " I?ve.. never seen a response that has specifically refuted anything that I've said".




This is a woman who's experienced the unimaginable trauma of a wide eyed, jaw jutting, sweat dripping Sven pumping away at her every night. It must be like fucking Mr Burns from the Simpsons, but without Smithers to manually control the thrusts. No wonder she's lost all touch with reality.

What's your excuse?  
Colin Fitzpatrick
262   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:04:30

Report abuse

There are some interesting views being expressed on where we would be, for example, if we would have secured the Kings Dock. Would that have enabled us to compete with those clubs of the pitch?

Notwithstanding the fact that we have beaten them both recently, a regular occurrence in the case of City, it?s a reasonable assumption that the answer would be no. But, we?re now in the era of UEFA?s FFP, this seasons accounts will be measured against this and we will see how much teeth the regulations have; I'd say sooner rather than later.

Essentially you can only spend what you earn on players and their salaries; infrastructure investment is excluded. Recently the Council of Europe deemed the recent £400m Etihad shirt sponsorship deal as an improper transaction; over to you Michel.

If we had secured a new ground, or undertaken phased redevelopment of Goodison would we be in a better position to take advantage of FFP? The only answer is yes and that Newcastle has been brought into this discussion is an excellent example of foresight and prudent borrowing.

The major redevelopment of Newcastle?s St James? Park stadium was financed through a mechanism used by Everton, a securitisation loan. This is a loan that is secured on the stadium and paid for through future season ticket and hospitality revenue; they were popular in the late 1990?s and early 2000?s with many football clubs; Newcastle took out the first if memory serves me correctly.

The difference between how Newcastle used their securitization loan and how Everton did tells you everything you ever need to know about why we have unsuitable owners who have possibly damaged the club beyond repair.

Newcastle took out a £55m securitization and used it to finance a major stadium redevelopment whilst Everton used it to stave off administration by consolidating all their loans and nothing else.

Whilst Newcastle are enjoying the fruits of a 52,000 capacity stadium, it was just 37,000, we?re just slowly paying off our debt through our tickets sales and will be for the next fifteen years with nothing to show and let?s not forget why we had to borrow in the first place ? strong quantification?

It?s a pity that yet another thread is ruined by the shite Martian posts but you gotta love him, there?s a gem in nearly every post. ?I?ve explained why I don?t need to produce facts, figures and statistics for any points I?ve raised? and even better, ?there are few Everton fans who?ve supported the club as long or as well as myself? and let?s not forget, ?I like to see a little bit of intelligence injected into the debates?

Martian, the gift that just keeps giving.
Martin Mason
263   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:19:31

Report abuse

John, and your point is?
Andrew Laird
264   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:28:53

Report abuse

Martin, are you a sole trader?
Christine Foster
265   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:32:28

Report abuse

Christine Foster
438   Posted 05/03/2012 at 11:16:49
Report abuse

Martin, re your comment..

"I'll start by telling you that the club has no obligation to move the club forward, that is simply your opinion, it is baseless"

Can I refer you to the following sections of the companies act with respect to Directors duties;

2.Section 172 ? Duty to promote the success of the company ? as a Director you must act in good faith for the success of the company and benefit of the shareholders having regard to the likely consequences of any decision long term. This will include considering the interests of employees, business relationships with suppliers, customers and others, the impact on the community and environment, maintaining the reputation of the company for having high standards of business conduct, acting fairly between members of the company and; subject to the legal requirements, to consider and act in the interests of creditors.

Furthermore:

3.Section 173 ? Duty to exercise independent judgment ? the company is a completely separate entity to you as director. Therefore, as a director you must consider whether a deal with the company which you own will be the best deal for the company as opposed to yourself. At the time a decision is made the matters raised in the rest of Chapter 2 of the Act need to be considered so that you are you acting in good faith and solely for the benefit of the company taking all the circumstances into account and not for example, creating a conflict of interest

So you see Martin, by law the Director HAS to act in the best interest of the business stakeholders AS HIS FIRST DUTY. Not another shareholder or himself.

Whilst making a profit is the objective, it has to be done with the interests of all stakeholders first over and above other Directors, shareholders and themselves. That is enshrined in law.



Duty to promote the success of the company

?What is success? The starting point is that it is essentially for the members of the company to define the objective they wish to achieve. Success means what the members collectively want the company to achieve. For a commercial company, success will usually mean long-term increase in value. it will mean the attainment of the objectives for which the company has been established?.
Lord Goldsmith, Lords Grand Committee, 6 February 2006
Martin Mason
266   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:20:46

Report abuse

Colin

Newcastle also went down into the second division and if it had been easy for Everton to finance a ground in the same manner then why didn?t they? I?m not a financial expert but if there was a possibility that EFC could have redeveloped Goodison on the basis of a loan securitized against future income then they would have done it if it were to their benefit or if they had any chance of getting it. That in itself doesn?t guarantee any increase in future income as expanding the stadium to 50,000 seats wouldn?t. The point is, and you are missing it, is that EFC doesn?t have the income to develop the ground and maintain a high strength playing staff. The benefactor isn?t coming and the club isn?t allowed to print money like the government is. So what is your solution? Oh yes an interim board. Doh!!
Derek Thomas
267   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:29:26

Report abuse

Told ya, can't help himself with the smartarse...see 263 and all the others previous.

Ignore him...you know it makes sense.
Christine Foster
268   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:33:39

Report abuse

Martin I too have been a company director of several companies public and private and l am only too aware of my duties and responsibilities. I take my view and opinion based on my experience and knowledge as well as having those responsibilities spelt out to me.
The post above is company law, applicable to public and private companies that have multiple shareholders and stakeholders. Money is raised by the company in the companies name with often directors standing surety however the company is the entity and the director another shareholder. They do not own the company individually and must act dot ALL shareholders. Fact not opinion.
Christine Foster
269   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:43:26

Report abuse

My apologies to other posters, this is not a business forum so l do not mean to bore the pants off anyone
Martin Mason
271   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:36:23

Report abuse

Christine,

Assuming that you are quoting the correct act for the type of Company that EFC is (I?ll check) I?ll say the following:

They have acted in good faith to ensure the success of the company.

They have acted in the best interest of the shareholders

They have achieved success even though they aren?t a commercial Company, they are a football club. I'd say that success for any reasonable person would be achieving their best potential given their income in a league where income varies tremendously. It could be staying in the EPL, it certainly wouldn't mean winning trophies

Don?t forget Christine that it is 100% on you to show that these statements aren?t true and that the board has not acted in the interest of the club..

As I say I?m a company director and I?m bound by none of those ideals above
Martin Mason
272   Posted 09/03/2012 at 12:00:28

Report abuse

Christine

You are correct in the duties as they apply to EFCs directors and I also haveto apply them.

My points still stand and if you read the Companies act further you'll see it's far more complex than a simple statement. for example The duty of good faith to act in the best interest of the Company is further explained as "In the way a director considers would be most likely to achieve success".
Tom Hughes
273   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:42:46

Report abuse

Martin,
Colin and I know the person who helped oversee much of Newcastle's development. You attempted to say that they did it all due to rich benefactors..... your only pet theory regarding any strategy for progress. You were shown to be misinformed yet again..... a recurring theme for you. Yet still you insist on grasping at irrelevant straws to excuse your boundless ignorance. You should also note that Newcastle's owners inherited a grossly inferior stadium to GP with only a few thousand seats. They hadn't averaged over 30k in over 20yrs and not over 40k in over 40yrs..... they rarely out supported EFC ever. Now they do so every season. They can even do it after relegation. Who has progressed the most? Which board has done the most to advance their club? Facts, facts..... every time! Do you want me to pick another club to illustrate the point yet again?
Christine Foster
274   Posted 09/03/2012 at 12:13:22

Report abuse

Sadly Martin l know the companies act backwards, the directors are responsible to all shareholders not just the majority. Indeed if you care to read the last version of the act it enshrines and expands those responsibilities to those of the best interests of all stakeholders.. That's customers.

Just how have they maximized the potential of the club? Because if you are saying they have SOLELY acted in the best interests of the club l would ask you to prove it.
Colin Fitzpatrick
275   Posted 09/03/2012 at 11:48:23

Report abuse

Christine, you're wasting your time; I've already quoted the companies act to him long since but he's oblivious. Then again, what do you expect from a process worker from beyond the beyond who has an opinion on everything but knowledge of nothing. He's now telling an experienced company director what her duties are; you just couldn't make it up.

His answer on learning how Newcastle financed their ground redevelopment is nothing short of pathetic but it demonstrates adequately that the man is a moron.

He is totally oblivious to the point that whilst Newcastle borrowed to invest in a project that would generate tens of millions of pounds, Newcastle 's matchday income is £30m, Everton's is less than £20m, Everton simply borrowed to pay off debt, a level of debt that was the sole responsibility of the people in the boardroom to this day and the cause of which remains today hence the sale of Rooney two years later which saved the club and the £30m sale of a host of players recently which has done the same. Of course the reason Newcastle were relegated was because they redeveloped through securitization!!!!

Everton couldn't finance their redevelopment through securitization because they were financially shot and about to enter administration and their lifeline was to sell the greatest amount of the future income from season ticket sales that they possibly could, which any prospective owner will relish, along with the sale of the catering and merchandising contracts

Martian, as for your sly pathetic little dig at interim boards just remember what Everton have now done; they've brought in professionals to sell the club in place of the failure of a chairman.

Like I said earlier, another thread ruined by the rem from Kazakhstan with his incessant shite.
Andy Crooks
276   Posted 09/03/2012 at 12:35:20

Report abuse

Martin Mason, as someone who deals in facts you have stated that you can only be in a relegation battle at the end of a season.This is patently not a fact and as an opinion it is highly dubious. Wigan, Wolves ,Bolton and Blackburn probably see themselves as having been in a relegation battle for some time.
Brian Harrison
278   Posted 09/03/2012 at 12:38:43

Report abuse

Just getting back to Rangers, I know the administrator is very close to agreeing a deal with the players. The deal is for most of the playing staff to take a pay cut till the end of the season, with the highest earners reducing their pay by 75%.

As I understand it the players took this action to stop any players being made redundant. Sadly I guess this agreement doesnt protect everybody employed by Rangers.

I did hear that if the administrator had failed to reach agreement with the players, then some players contracts may have been cancelled. Now I imagine all Rangers players have watertight contracts, so I imagine their contracts would have to have been settled in full for what was left on the contract. So how would that have saved Rangers money in the short term.
Colin Fitzpatrick
279   Posted 09/03/2012 at 12:29:19

Report abuse

Yet further proof this moron is a WUM....

"There is not a shred of evidence that the directors don?t want to sell. In section 17 of the DK enquiry it is accepted as fact that the club has been for sale for years and that was ONE REASON FOR TURNING DOWN THE APPLICATION."

And here's me thinking it was due to being an inappropriately sized development in relation to local, regional and national planning regulations; no matter, the whopper from Kazakhstan must know best, after all I only took part in the inquiry.

To kill two birds with the one stone about what actually was said in the inquiry report, and Martian knows this only too well and is proof that he is acting as a WUM in his conversation with Christine, here it is in black and white once again,

"However, the argument that there is an urgent need for a new stadium or that the planning system ought to roll over to facilitate an increase in the value of the club for the benefit of its present owners or even for the excitement of its fans is not accepted.No doubt the value of the club to its owners will increase if a new stadium can be provided at a subsidised cost but this is not a matter which the planning system can properly take into account."

Everton's owners weren't acting in the best interests of the company, a separate entity to the owners and other shareholders, they were acting, as the government report clearly states, " for the benefit of its present owners" only a fool would see otherwise, oh......hang on.

This has gone on long enough, you're acting as a WUM and as such you add no value to TW whatsoever.
Wayne Smyth
291   Posted 09/03/2012 at 13:33:37

Report abuse

Martin(271), given you've said:

"It's essential that all people who post strong opinions are challenged to provide a basis for those opinions. In that way we find out what is realistic and what is fantasy"

How do you know that kenwright et al have:

"acted in good faith to ensure the success of the company"

and

acted in the best interest of the shareholders"

Colin Fitzpatrick
302   Posted 09/03/2012 at 14:41:33

Report abuse

Whoops!
Wayne I believe that is known as being hoist by his own petard ;-)
Bobby Thomas
307   Posted 09/03/2012 at 15:06:26

Report abuse

Martin: Hows it going not getting involved in internet pissing contests?
John Keating
335   Posted 09/03/2012 at 15:33:28

Report abuse

Martin. You work 6 and 2 or something in the Khazi, as a process engineer or some other insignificant white boiler suited office job contracted to TOC/Chevron, and you're a "Company Director"?? Must be some sized company you direct. Though you would walk into the boardroom at Goodison with the other half-wits.

Sorry mate, you are well and truly outed!!!
Kevin Tully
339   Posted 09/03/2012 at 16:14:43

Report abuse

Martin,

If I were you, I would not go around bragging about being a company director - some people can check you out in a click of a mouse, and they would see that you are not very successful.
Andrew Laird
348   Posted 09/03/2012 at 16:32:00

Report abuse

Martin is the company director of "Martin's World" a fictional theme park where reality and fact cease to exist and an hour can seem like a year.

"Martin's World" can only be reached with a one way ticket. No refunds will be given.
Steve Brown
353   Posted 09/03/2012 at 16:42:33

Report abuse

Martin Mason, the biggest wind up merchant in the world. I love him.
Danny James
398   Posted 09/03/2012 at 18:38:04

Report abuse

the failure of this club goes back to 1992/93 when the premier league started. We didnt have the foresight to exploit marketing opportunities then and also we didnt keep a manager long enough to develop a successful playing squad to generate income through success.

We therefore missed the boat to be in there with the top six clubs for financial muscle but i dont see why we are in a particular worse situation than any of the other clubs in the premier league.

Our average premier league final postion over this period of time is 7th which makes us the most successful out of all the other clubs. I dont also see any of the other clubs making huge profits each year, i wouldnt be suprised to learn that they also manage to lose money each season like we do

Do we honestly believe that billionaires are trying to take over this club and kenwright is refusing to sell because he deliberately wants to run the club into the ground?

It would take a person with deep deep pockets to make a difference at this club otherwise whoever takes over is going to do no better than anyone running the club presently

We dont bat an eyelid when other clubs sell players to generate income and reduce losses . Sunderland sold Bent and Henderson for 44 million. Villa sold Downing and Young. Newcastle sold Dobbin for 35 million. Imagine our reaction if we sold Baines and Rodwell for 40 million, we would be saying that this is a further vindication we are on the brink of administration yet to me it seems that player trading is a necessity for all top flight clubs, other than the wealthy six, to keep in business
Gavin Ramejkis
403   Posted 09/03/2012 at 19:18:37

Report abuse

Apology branch offered Stephen, thought you had switched into the new Martin
Shaun Brennan
408   Posted 09/03/2012 at 19:46:16

Report abuse

I love the way Colin calls him Martian. It tickles me.


Ha ha, Introducing Martin, Marvin the Martians brother.
Paul Watson
425   Posted 09/03/2012 at 20:31:47

Report abuse

There is of course a comparison to Rangers' position in that of Leeds Utd. It is interesting to look at their case as it draws interesting parallels with a number of situations.

Leeds went into voluntary administration in May 2007. The majority of players took deferred wages to help the club. The administrators now ran the financial helm and looked for a new buyer who would help settle the debts. These were variously put at £25 - 50m.

The administrators eventually settled for a deal brokered by Ken Bates ? yes, that Ken Bates! ? whereby the creditors would get 8p in the pound for their money owed, rising to 30p in the pound if Leeds made the Premier League before 2012, ie this season. The Bates consortium 'invested' around £10m.

The biggest single debtor was HMRC who dropped their objection a few months later and accepted the Bates offer. Thr first results for 'new Leeds' showed that in 14 months they had made a profir of nearly £1m and including players transfers that was £4.5 m - a nice return.

Since this and other events, there have been punitive measures put in place to stop clubs using admistration as a convenient way out of debt ? not just HMRC were owed money but many former players and other clubs. But to some clubs, the idea of entering administration to come away with a clean balance sheet and a slightly different name is a real temptation. For all the criticism levelled at him, would you rather have BK or Ken Bates running your club?
Derek Thomas
433   Posted 09/03/2012 at 21:06:14

Report abuse

Paul Watson 425; Bit of a Hitler Vs Stalin question there. We may never know but why did Bates put it all together anyway, what was and is in it for him? Was it an ego thing, he likes the glory, the whole matchday thing of being t'chairman.
Eric Myles
459   Posted 10/03/2012 at 00:18:35

Report abuse

John #335, it's probably an offshore sole proprietorship tax dodge company.

I agree with Derek Thomas, DON'T FEED THE TROLL.
James Flynn
469   Posted 10/03/2012 at 02:11:50

Report abuse

Eric (459) - "DON'T FEED THE TROLL".
Not sure what a troll eats. His own words? Certainly haven't seen Martin doing so.

Keep it coming Martin. I'm with you. Just never precede "you" with "fuck" and you're golden.

Remember, without your posts here, this thread would have died out in the 20s or 30s. That counts for a lot in a discussion board.
Martin Mason
476   Posted 10/03/2012 at 04:17:02

Report abuse

Wayne@291

The null hypothesis is that the EFC has acted in good faith to ensure the success of the company. I don't have to show that they have not, the onus is absolutely on you to show that they haven't.

Please go ahead and do it, if not I'm sure another member of the baying pack will.
Martin Mason
477   Posted 10/03/2012 at 04:27:37

Report abuse

Christine @274

I've just read through the directors responsibility again and I can see no reference to maximising the potential of the club as a duty. The words are to "in good faith" to promote the success of.

Again, it is not on me to prove anything. It is absolutely on yourself to demonstrate that they haven't. Acting in good faith is also in a way which THEY consider is in good faith.

The challenge is on you or other posters to demonstrate what you are saying is so and you need to do so
Martin Mason
478   Posted 10/03/2012 at 04:34:14

Report abuse

Tom@273

I have never said that Newcastle "did it all" due to rich benefactors. I said that they had the benefit of a rich benefactor who put a lot of his own money into the club. We don't have thata so the comparison isn't valid.
Martin Mason
479   Posted 10/03/2012 at 04:36:43

Report abuse

Colin

It's really funny because like Tom you don't understand what I've said but you actually agree with most of the things I've said. The only difference is that you ridiculously blame only this board for the situation that EFC are in. I've asked you many times to demonstrate wilful negligence or criminal activity, I've asked Christine a question above that perhaps you may try to answer, it's called backing up what you say and so far you have been singly unsuccessful in doing so.

Just for info EFC took out a securitised loan in 2002 I think to develop the squad. It was my option B I think which I acknowledge failed. That is not evidence of mismanagement, it is evidence of a board acting in good faith (as they saw it) to promote the success of the club. What else could it be? Did they syphon the money out for their own gains?

Please answer my questions because whatever you may think you haven't yet.
Martin Mason
480   Posted 10/03/2012 at 04:43:06

Report abuse

Danny@398, Paul at 425

Wonderful, rationality and sense amongs headbanging. Good posts
Martin Mason
481   Posted 10/03/2012 at 04:49:43

Report abuse

To all of my other fanboys I'm sorry I can't answer your posts individually because I just get far too much fan mail nowadays.

Just to clear up your confusion over the Company director thing. I'm a company director of a small engineering company which isn't trading now I'm out of the country. It isn't an offshore company and it isn't used for tax avoidance. I pay tax like all upstanding citizens and real Evertonians do. I don't wear a boiler suit and I'm not a process operator. It is also really hard being a misunderstood genius who knows everything about everything.

Martin Mason
484   Posted 10/03/2012 at 05:35:58

Report abuse

Just for info to support my point that the DK inquiry accepted that EFC was for sale

From 17.8.11 of the DK Inquiry report

"Furthermore, EFC has been for sale for some years[5.3.3], so the management structure and financial position of the club could change at any time."

It was one of the reasons for turning down the application. One amongst many.

5.3.3 is interesting and very appropriate

Any move must be subject to financial affordability. Whilst some clubs have been sold to highly affluent investors from overseas, others are owned by enthusiasts who put up their money to fund the club with little or no material return, accepting that close involvement with their passion is dividend enough.

A sale is not necessarily a panacea for resolving money problems since the buyer also has to raise money and service the debt. Nevertheless, since 2004, the club, like many, has been for sale. Nobody has been appointed to sell the club and to the knowledge of the CEO there is no buyer for the club.
Christine Foster
493   Posted 10/03/2012 at 07:33:32

Report abuse

Martin
It is not my duty to hold a director responsibile or any other poster, but a shareholder can, well they used to be able to untile AGMs were abolished. Now the ability to hold directors accountable is significantly reduced at EFC.

But rather that I comment on what is expected, I can let Lord Goldsmith in his comments on the company act in Hansard when laying down the Bill do it for me.

?We should remind ourselves that being a company director is a wonderful thing for the person who is a company director. But it is a position of great responsibility which involves running the affairs of a company for the benefit of other people. It is a heavy responsibility we should not water down.? ? Lord Goldsmith, Lords Grand Committee, 6 February 2006, column 291.

Note the comment, for other people...

Or perhaps: "Their duty is to promote the success for the benefit of the members as a whole ? that is, for the members as a collective body ? not only to benefit the majority shareholders, or any particular shareholder or section of shareholders, still less the interests of directors who might happen to be shareholders themselves. That is an important statement of the way in which directors need to look at this judgement they have to make.? ? Lord Goldsmith, Lords Grand Committee, 6 February 2006, column 256.

The 2006 Act embodies most of the rulings determined in the courts by reiterating the view that company directors have a fiduciary obligation to enhance the standing of the company for the benefit of the members.

Have they done this Martin? If so show me where?

I have not voiced an opinion, merely the legal interpretation that accompanied its introduction into an act. It is not incumbent on me or any other poster to prove a negative, but perhaps I can ask you to prove a positive?
Martin Mason
496   Posted 10/03/2012 at 08:26:11

Report abuse

Christine, no good just quoting the act, you have to demonstrate that they have transgressed. I don't have to show anything because I believe that the board has acted in what it saw as good faith. The onus is 100% on you to prove the transgression. Raising an opinion that they have isn't the same thing.

I'm not saying that the board has done well, in fact I believe that their performance has been in many cases poor especially in how they communicate. What I will say though is that the situation is vastly more complex than many simplistically frame it and the concept that the board are totally responsible for the position we are in and all we have to do to restore ourselves to 1970 grandeur is get them out is naive.

It is absolutely possible that the board has done well in keeping us where we are in very trying financial circumstances. It is what many people in the game and, based on the low levels of support given to the BU protests, the majority of Everton supporters believe.
Ciarán McGlone
504   Posted 10/03/2012 at 08:55:42

Report abuse

Martin,

You're talking bollocks.

Solicitors and barristers go into court with nothing other than opinions.

Do you know what a double bind is? You show classic symptoms.
Christine Foster
505   Posted 10/03/2012 at 08:51:23

Report abuse

Martin yet again you failt to answer the request. I have NOT voiced an opinion, I have asked you to prove to me that the directors have acted in accordance with their duties.
You say its not your responsibility to do so, neither is it mine to prove they haven;t but then you do not see the irony in your comments.

What my opinion IS, is that given the balance of probability and facts that have come to light my experience would say that they have not.

As I said before (and I keep saying ot) this is a forum of opinion not necessarily all fact. however like most jigsaws peices fit rather than hammering any piece to prove your point.

It may well be worth remembering that most of what was considered as pure conjecture without foundation was eventually proved as fact in the enquiry that was DK

That the directos have misled, (fact) lied (fact) and promoted self interest (fact) leads one to suggest that leopards rarely change their spots. I suggest you read the facts and submissions of the DK enquiry before coming back with comments such as the club is for sale when in the same investigation it was acknowledged by the CEO that the shares were not, nor did the directors wish to sell or dilute, so, answer me please, how, pray tell could the club be for sale?
They were found out. They haven't changed. Neither have some who still believe in them
Martin Mason
507   Posted 10/03/2012 at 09:07:55

Report abuse

And again Christine I tell you that I don't have to show that the directors have acted in accordance with their duties. You have to show they haven't. If they go to court for not doing so, do the defence have to prove that they have? Please Christine, the null hypothesis is that they have acted in accordance with their legal duties until they can be shown not to have; they are incoccent until proven guilty and you have shown not a shred of evidence that they are. You can't of course.

I have recently read the DK Inquiry thank you, and I showed you where it was accepted by the enquiry that the club had been for sale. Please don't say that you also don't read posts before responding.

Tom Hughes
508   Posted 10/03/2012 at 09:08:38

Report abuse

You're wasting your time Christine..... he's not interested in facts..... he admits the board is poor and then he contradicts himself...... apparently they have no obligations and are answerable to no-one. They can fail continually, deliver nothing and yet expect a profit on selling and that's ok by him. The absolute defintion of carpet baggers and inept management.
Tom Hughes
510   Posted 10/03/2012 at 09:29:42

Report abuse

Martin.... you were shown to be wrong about Newcastle and the comparison was a valid one. Their board actually achieved more with less.... and now their club is significantly bigger than ours despite the fact that they've won nothing in generations. You were also shown how Villa and Spurs similarly addressed their stadium issues to grow their income streams and secure their futures.... you can readily see how numerous other clubs have similarly maximised their potential and built for the future both on and off the pitch.... and often without massive injections but by proper prudent planning. There are also examples of many boards who have left their clubs for minimal, or even no profit to ensure that progress can be continued. Both sunderland and wolves selling for nominal fees under guarantee of further investment. These boards built up their clubs and added value and yet demanded nothing..... genuine directors and genuine supporters with no need for boys pen hogwash.
Steve Pugh
511   Posted 10/03/2012 at 09:49:29

Report abuse

Martin, how many AGM's did you attend before the board, whilst acting in the best interests of the stakeholders and not themselves, decided to stop them?

I ask because you seem to dismiss people who report comments that were made at AGM's or other meetings.

I also need to point out that this isn't a court of law it is a discussion forum. Your insistence that you do not need to prove your arguments simply suggests that you can't. If you want people to agree with your point of view in a discussion you need to give them something tangible to agree with.

So far all you have done is make out that you are an insular, self centred, uninformed know all, with no debating skills at all.
Martin Mason
512   Posted 10/03/2012 at 09:53:24

Report abuse

Tom, go back and read what I said about Newcastle. Go on, there's a first time for everything you know.

Please no more waffling about how every other club on the planet has done better than Everton, figures proving it please. Stating an opinion however many times doesn't make it fact.
Tom Hughes
514   Posted 10/03/2012 at 10:04:22

Report abuse

Martin,

You stated that Newcastle achieved because they had a wealthy benefactor..... you were shown to be wrong.

You have been given facts and figures repeatedly.... your weak non-arguments have all been refuted repeatedly. You retreat to semantics and selective quotes out of context. Whenever cornered on an issue you go off on a tangent or simply say you cannot or do not have to answer or prove anything.

Btw having a pillar drill and bench grinder in the shed doesn't constitute a small engineering company..... I wonder how many company directors work a 6-2 rota in one of the world's shitholes. I know lots of contractors who declare themselves a company they also know very little about company law.
John Keating
518   Posted 10/03/2012 at 10:13:52

Report abuse

Tom. Time to give up I'm afraid. I can't actually prove it but it is my opinion Martin is a complete idiot.
By dismissing posters on here and, literally, demanding they prove everything, he implies the opposite.
Without doubt he is an acolyte of the present Board regardless of what happens to our great club.
He has yet to prove one of his many opinions, which are too many to mention.
I personally took umbrage to Liverpool being a City in decline. He obviously doesn't live here or visit very often. He hasn't seen the great strides the City has made in recent years.
No wonder his business went down the tubes.
Of course all of the above is only my " opinion "
Colin Fitzpatrick
519   Posted 10/03/2012 at 10:05:49

Report abuse

Martian, first of all, as you do not actually go to the game, you have no idea of the support The Blue Union has; it appears your knowledge of this is based on little more than anecdotal evidence, as is your whole perception of Everton, Everton?s business and Evertonians in general.

Secondly, and possibly one of the few occasions on which you are correct, I, along with the vast majority on Toffeeweb, definitely do not understand what you are talking about. I also do not understand what a two year old is talking about; a more analogous correlation you?d be hard pressed to find.

Thirdly, ?Just for info EFC took out a securitised loan in 2002 I think to develop the squad? proves that you?re just looking things up because any Evertonian worth their salt would know that the reasons behind the securitization loan did not concern squad development whatsoever and I can assure you that you have no need to prefix anything you tell me with ?just for info? others yes, you never.

You?re spamming this site by picking up unrelated information and making assumptions. Here?s another prime example. You?re quoting from the inquiry report because I previously sent you the link. You apply general remarks and observations whilst I quote specifics. You quote this general observation,

?Whilst some clubs have been sold to highly affluent investors from overseas, others are owned by enthusiasts who put up their money to fund the club with little or no material return, accepting that close involvement with their passion is dividend enough.?

Neither observation, highly affluent investor or enthusiasts who put up their money to fund the club, is applicable to Everton, unlike when I quote from the report,

?an increase in the value of the club for the benefit of its present owners?

which is directly applicable and, on the basis the relocation offered very little else, is proof that the directors were acting in their own best interests in conflict to the companies act which Christine has knocked you from pillar to post with.

Another of your ridiculous contentions, that the club being up for sale was a contributory factor to the decision to reject the Kirkby planning application, only adds weight to the theory that you?re skimming through information on the net in a bid to appear knowledgeable.

If you can show me where it states that the club being up for sale was a consideration in this document, the decision document, I?ll wear a Liverpool shirt to today?s game.

http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/PDF/09-11-25%20Final%20DL%20Everton%20Tesco%201203375b.pdf

Of course you won?t find it hence the reason you have subtly changed your stance from, ?it was one reason for turning down the application? to ?the DK inquiry accepted that EFC was for sale?. It?s laughable that you?re informing me of the fact the club was up for sale, it?s even more laughable that you don?t understand as you?re oblivious to what you?re talking about Martian.

Everton told the inquiry that they were not for sale, we told the inquiry that they were for sale and the inspector agreed with us.

The reason Everton, as in Robert Elstone, had to deny this was that Kenwright had involved Everton in a dirty property scam involving the transfer of public money, through the value of the land, a value that was not fully realised by KMBC, to a private company, Everton, in the form of a £52m value that would have appeared on their balance sheet, after they'd paid for the construction of a £78m stadium, to be enjoyed by the owners, as in, ?an increase in the value of the club for the benefit of its present owners? sometime later.

You clearly do not understand the implication here; you?re sitting at your computer with birds flying around your head.

I blame the board for Kirkby, the loss of the King?s Dock, the loss of Everton Place and the fact that our other operating costs rose by 80% in one year which, by their own admission, means that we are paying £38,000 a day for our Finch Farm training facility, because they are the only people responsible; directors are responsible for the actions of their employees, there isn't anyone else to point the finger at as there's no need to look any further.

I also have no need to answer your questions about criminal activity as it is only you that is making that allegation; negligence, wilful or otherwise, is patently obvious to all but the most idiotic ;-)

Martian; it?s been mildly amusing but I think your time has come. I will be at Goodison later, I?ll probably have a beer or two with Tom and others on here whilst you swig your cheap vodka all alone in the back of beyond?..ain?t life a bitch; no wonder you need the company, crave the attention. One word Martian, sad.
Eugene Ruane
522   Posted 10/03/2012 at 10:27:20

Report abuse

Can already hear Martin's keys tapping in Knowzfukalistan.

"Thank you to my fans but what you fail to understand..."

Followed by 20 paragraphs of utter shite, written for the sole purpose of hearing the soothing 'tappity-tap' noise coming from his keyboard.

(my guess - bit like the castaway Tom Hanks and his basketball mate, Wilson).
George McKane
524   Posted 10/03/2012 at 10:46:44

Report abuse

Me - I am just getting excited about the game today - - football - - team - tactics - let Saturday be match day - - if you want to see what a few of the faces look like to go with their TW names tune in to The Dark House at 4.00pm - -cosmic grooves all the way from George
Martin Mason
525   Posted 10/03/2012 at 10:47:14

Report abuse

Colin

I posted exactly what it said in the Inquiry report and didn't need to write War and Peace to do it. What a bloody waffler you are. I can imagine you and Tom being perfect company. You could power the under soil heating systems with the hot air you guys blow out of your arses.

Why don't you get together and see if you can answer my questions between you.

Anyway, I really hope you enjoy the game. Everton's the team in Blue btw.
Colin Fitzpatrick
526   Posted 10/03/2012 at 10:05:49

Report abuse

Martian, first of all, as you do not actually go to the game, you have no idea of the support The Blue Union has; it appears your knowledge of this is based on little more than anecdotal evidence, as is your whole perception of Everton, Everton?s business and Evertonians in general.

Secondly, and possibly one of the few occasions on which you are correct, I, along with the vast majority on Toffeeweb, definitely do not understand what you are talking about. I also do not understand what a two year old is talking about; a more analogous correlation you?d be hard pressed to find.

Thirdly, ?Just for info EFC took out a securitised loan in 2002 I think to develop the squad? proves that you?re just looking things up because any Evertonian worth their salt would know that the reasons behind the securitization loan did not concern squad development whatsoever and I can assure you that you have no need to prefix anything you tell me with ?just for info? others yes, you never.

You?re spamming this site by picking up unrelated information and making assumptions. Here?s another prime example. You?re quoting from the inquiry report because I previously sent you the link. You apply general remarks and observations whilst I quote specifics. You quote this general observation,

?Whilst some clubs have been sold to highly affluent investors from overseas, others are owned by enthusiasts who put up their money to fund the club with little or no material return, accepting that close involvement with their passion is dividend enough.?

Neither observation, highly affluent investor or enthusiasts who put up their money to fund the club, is applicable to Everton, unlike when I quote from the report,

?an increase in the value of the club for the benefit of its present owners?

which is directly applicable and, on the basis the relocation offered very little else, is proof that the directors were acting in their own best interests in conflict to the companies act which Christine has knocked you from pillar to post with.

Another of your ridiculous contentions, that the club being up for sale was a contributory factor to the decision to reject the Kirkby planning application, only adds weight to the theory that you?re skimming through information on the net in a bid to appear knowledgeable.

If you can show me where it states that the club being up for sale was a consideration in this document, the decision document, I?ll wear a Liverpool shirt to today?s game.

http://www.knowsley.gov.uk/PDF/09-11-25%20Final%20DL%20Everton%20Tesco%201203375b.pdf

Of course you won?t find it hence the reason you have subtly changed your stance from, ?it was one reason for turning down the application? to ?the DK inquiry accepted that EFC was for sale?. It?s laughable that you?re informing me of the fact the club was up for sale, it?s even more laughable that you don?t understand as you?re oblivious to what you?re talking about Martian.

Everton told the inquiry that they were not for sale, we told the inquiry that they were for sale and the inspector agreed with us.

The reason Everton, as in Robert Elstone, had to deny this was that Kenwright had involved Everton in a dirty property scam involving the transfer of public money, through the value of the land, a value that was not fully realised by KMBC, to a private company, Everton, in the form of a £52m value that would have appeared on their balance sheet, after they'd paid for the construction of a £78m stadium, to be enjoyed by the owners, as in, ?an increase in the value of the club for the benefit of its present owners? sometime later.

You clearly do not understand the implication here; you?re sitting at your computer with birds flying around your head.

I blame the board for Kirkby, the loss of the King?s Dock, the loss of Everton Place and the fact that our other operating costs rose by 80% in one year which, by their own admission, means that we are paying £38,000 a day for our Finch Farm training facility, because they are the only people responsible; directors are responsible for the actions of their employees, there isn't anyone else to point the finger at as there's no need to look any further.

I also have no need to answer your questions about criminal activity as it is only you that is making that allegation; negligence, wilful or otherwise, is patently obvious to all but the most idiotic ;-)

Martian; it?s been mildly amusing but I think your time has come. I will be at Goodison later, I?ll probably have a beer or two with Tom and others on here whilst you swig your cheap vodka all alone in the back of beyond?..ain?t life a bitch; no wonder you need the company, crave the attention. One word Martian, sad.
Brian Waring
527   Posted 10/03/2012 at 10:53:42

Report abuse

Martin " Given to the low level of support given to the BU protests, the MAJORITY of Everton supporters believe "

Just wondering Martin, is that just your opinion, or do you have it as fact that the majority believe?

Colin Fitzpatrick
530   Posted 10/03/2012 at 11:07:16

Report abuse

Poor old Martian, even when he takes the piss he gets it wrong; Everton's under soil heating is powered by hot water not hot air - always like to put a bit of information in my posts, unlike some I could martian - sorry - mention.
Martin Mason
535   Posted 10/03/2012 at 11:04:02

Report abuse

John Keating @518

Opinions are like farts and kids, they are OK when they are your own. I see here accusations of willful negligence, the board acting only in its own interest and insinuations even of criminal negligence, I see absolute rubbish about us being where we are only because of the board and that all we have to do is get rid of them to achieve Nirvanah. Of course I want to see evidence of this because I like to see both sides of the argument. I don?t dismiss posters and I?m not an acolyte of the current board.

Liverpool as a city (and Everton as a club?) is surely in relative decline; it has been for decades now although I recognize that great efforts have been and are being made to regenerate it. The Garden Festival was incredible and I couldn?t believe what they had made of that land which I remembered as wasteland as a child. I also did a lot of sailing out of the Marina that was built at the docks and marveled at what they had done there but it doesn?t hide the relative decline that it has suffered over the decades. Not only Liverpool as a City but places like New Brighton and the towns along the Wirral. I?m sure you?ll also agree that the Walton area is one of deprivation by modern standards.

By the way, if there?s anything I say that you feel needs proof then be sure to pull me up on it.
Martin Mason
537   Posted 10/03/2012 at 11:27:18

Report abuse

Brian

Maybe I'm a bit slow but of the 36,000 that went to Goodison that day there were, say, 400 protestors? That's 35400 that didn't protest. I also don't know anybody that supports the BU approach although most understand the issues surrounding the club and are desperate to see us solve them.

My intention is not to be anti-BU, they have a right to do what they are doing. One of the things I'm saying is that whilst I'm being made out to be unrepresentative I believe my view is of the majority.
Brian Waring
539   Posted 10/03/2012 at 11:35:45

Report abuse

Martin, I know plenty that back the BU, me included, that don't go on the marches. I could imagine there would be plenty on here also that back them, but don't march.

Unless you could canvass every fan on a matchday, it is not fact that the majority believe, its just your opinion.
George McKane
540   Posted 10/03/2012 at 11:35:42

Report abuse

Hey Martin - - good to have your opinion - - thats what a Forum is - - but lets all take it easy a bit on each other - - I am 63 but looking incredibly cool - maybe I am an old fart and today a gang of excluded kids who I work with who have little interest in football are helping me to set up the live link so you can taste a bit of the atmosphere at the game now days and hopefully have a direct chat to Colin and myself. Take it easy and look after yourself.
Tom Hughes
543   Posted 10/03/2012 at 11:28:51

Report abuse

Martin,
How come nearly every thread you engage in ends up with you being ridiculed by everyone after being bombarded with facts and data you then dismiss or ignore?

Btw: the garden festival was almost 30yrs ago...... is that how long you've been away? Look up Liverpool one (one of the biggest retail developments in the UK)..... then when you have finished marvelling at that and all the other city-centre developments you can look at the vast Liverpool Waters development or the expansion of the port facilities and Wirral waters worth billions and offering thousands of jobs......

It would appear that you are misinformed on almost every subject..... yet claim to be an authority on everything.
Tom Hughes
549   Posted 10/03/2012 at 11:28:51

Report abuse

Martin,
How come nearly every thread you engage in ends up with you being ridiculed by everyone after being bombarded with facts and data you then dismiss or ignore?

Btw: the garden festival was almost 30yrs ago...... is that how long you've been away? Look up Liverpool one (one of the biggest retail developments in the UK)..... then when you have finished marvelling at that and all the other city-centre developments you can look at the vast Liverpool Waters development or the expansion of the port facilities and Wirral waters worth billions and offering thousands of jobs......

It would appear that you are misinformed on almost every subject..... yet claim to be an authority on everything.
Peter Foy
552   Posted 10/03/2012 at 12:15:59

Report abuse

Martin.

With regaed to your figures on protests.

The poll tax forced a march in london containing 70,000 people. That's 1 in 850 per population. Does that mean most people looked at the poll tax favourably.

Even by your own figures, the Blue union protest involved 400 protestors. That's 1 in 90.

So basically the blue union protest was 10 times more popular than the poll tax protests.

You see, you're talking shite.
John Keating
553   Posted 10/03/2012 at 12:14:32

Report abuse

Martin.
I personally do not accept that Liverpool is a City in decline - that's my opinion.
Everton Football Club - yes I definetly accept they are. - again my opinion.
I don't believe getting rid of the Board will give us Nirvanah and I personally don't know anyone who does.
What I think it will do is give us the opportunity to slowly turn things around by having businessmen with a plan at the helm as patently the present incumbents have no idea whatsoever.
Now if you require proof of the present mobs incompetence then - in my opinion - you are too far gone !
Sometimes Martin you just have to accept things the way they are, you know if its got 4 legs looks like a dog answers to Lassie it probably is a dog.
The Board are shit, they've manipulated and lied to the support and were found out big style at the DK gig.
No matter how you wrap it up and no matter how much proof you want they're incompetent lying bastards every one.
Phil Bellis
558   Posted 10/03/2012 at 12:31:37

Report abuse

Liverpool City Centre is recovering after being ripped apart by planners in the 60s and 70s although the local communities have gone forever
Even where I worked as an 18-year old is now somebody's flat in a managed inner-city village
All southern friends whom I've accompanied on recent mini tours of the City's pubs, culture and architecture have gone away singing its praises
Whenever I get back home I get a great feeling of belonging - my City, my people, my history
Martin, come up and see us sometime and leave your blinkers South of Watford

{disclaimeron}
Much of the above may, or may not, be fact, proveable or otherwise and may be construed as personal opinion (or not)
{disclaimeroff}
Jack Molloy
666   Posted 10/03/2012 at 22:19:57

Report abuse

Colin Fitzpatrick: You say, "No new owner is going to come in and hand over an enormous sum for a new stadium... This is why I've always favoured the phased redevelopment solution." I agree. But if that's the case, why is the BU insisting (proposing) that a new owner put enough money in escrow to run the club for five years and build a new stadium? I've never understood why such a demand would either be made or met. To me that merely helps undermine BU's credibility.
Tom Hughes
687   Posted 11/03/2012 at 01:42:21

Report abuse

Jack.... where do they demand this?
Martin Mason
690   Posted 11/03/2012 at 03:30:55

Report abuse

Peter

The poll tax protests were by a tiny minority, the BU marches were by a tiny minority, that one tiny minority is bigger than another doesn't make it anything other than a tiny minority.

I guess logic isn't your strong point?
Martin Mason
693   Posted 11/03/2012 at 03:58:07

Report abuse

Phil

I'd never say that Liverpool isn't a great city only that financially it's in relative decline from its great days as the empires's second city when it was an industrial powerhouse. Planners yes but don't forget miltant trade unions.
Martin Mason
694   Posted 11/03/2012 at 04:05:56

Report abuse

John Keating @ 553

Then you?re in luck, EFC have businessmen at the helm with a proven record and I?d say they probably have many plans. I also didn?t say that the current board hasn?t been incompetent, like you I have no idea whether they have or haven?t. The rest of your post is your personal opinion and certainly untrue

I?ve read the DK Inquiry report by the way and I don?t see the ?found out big style?. I?d say that anybody who peddles that myth hasn?t
Steve Brown
697   Posted 11/03/2012 at 04:41:16

Report abuse

Colin Kirkpatrick, the fact that you know how the undersoil heating works at Goodison just shows you really need to go and get a life.

As for 'Martian Mason', well you are just hilarious with that line aren't you - noting your tendency to recourse to pathetic insults when fail to impress someone about your massive intelligence. I'd rather read his posts any day to your boreathon tomes.
Eric Myles
709   Posted 11/03/2012 at 06:14:05

Report abuse

I wonder if that's the same Swiss Ramble report that states that the curernt board's business model is bust and is unsustainable?
Martin Mason
710   Posted 11/03/2012 at 06:24:50

Report abuse

Yes, the same model that I've described as bust and unsustainable too.
Rory Slingo
720   Posted 11/03/2012 at 07:04:58

Report abuse

Martin, you agree that the current model will lead this club into oblivion yet you wouldn't risk a change in ownership of the club because of the possibility it might lead it into... oblivion. There's also a chance a new board might turn our fortunes around and zero chance the current one will. And you call out others here for not using logic?

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to the MailBag, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.



© ToffeeWeb