Shareholders Meeting on Wednesday Evening

This is an opportunity to asking searching questions of this moribund Board. I hope they don't get away with fobbing off the shareholders; in particular I wish to hear that Kenwright and Elstone receive a grilling.

No matter how fierce and uncomfortable the questions might be, they will lie their way through it.

"Nobody is buying football clubs"
"Kenwright is the best salesman for Everton"
"Boys Pen"
"85p in the pound"
"I'm bored of that question"

I hope the meeting ends with us fans having a few more answers to the questions that we all ask, but sadly, all I can see is an outcome of farce and spin. Fingers crossed I am wrong.

It will be interesting to hear and read about this AGM though, to see what answers are given to some serious questions, so I'm looking forward to that!

I hope some of the people lucky enough to be there ask all the relevant questions. I wish I was a fly on the wall to hear what goes on though!

I'm sure all parties would agree that we need to be focussed and disciplined and project Evertonians in a positive light. For questions to be measured, considered and respectful.

The media will be out in force to report on proceedings, we need to ensure that our detractors have no ammunition to fire at us, or to propel urban myths, like they have in the past of unruly behaviour.

However, my major concern would be on how our Club continues to operate a BLACKLIST against its own FANS. I won't embarrass any individuals at this moment in time but the Club's behaviour leaves a bitter taste when two Proxies that I had a direct involvement in submitting have been denied their and the Shareholders' legal right to be in attendance.

Now I'm no conspiracy theorists, but for two of my fellow Evertonians to be denied the opportunity to attend this General Meeting is unfortunate... or is it?

Maybe there are far more sinister motives at work here. As well has being passionate Evertonians, my two brothers in arms also shared another trait, they BOTH have held office within KEIOC.

I say shame on them; rather than plotting and scheming against Fans and Fan groups, maybe the people responsible for operating this BLACKLIST would be far better served using their energies to attract business, sponsorship and investment.

Standing Together... don't make me laugh.

The difficulty, however, seems to me to be the intransigence with which they have handled this whole business of General Meetings. Rather than responding to the gentle pressure being applied by the incredibly patient Executive of the Shareholders Association over the last few years, that group were in effect forced to mobilze their members in demonstrating the clear desire for the annual meetings to be reinstated, and to get this meeting – clearly against the wishes of the Club – with the risk of creating an unwanted adversarial atmosphere to the entire proceedings.

Doing away with the AGMs in a fit of pique over the pushback they were getting on Destination Kirkby was really very immature. Surely they have an opportunity to listen to a good section of "The People", through a show of hands, and to let that pass, rather than calling for the Poll that they know they could win hands down if they so decide.

They are 'talking' to interested parties.

They are 'talking' to fans groups to foster a more open relationship.

They are 'talking' to the Council, looking for new sites for a stadium.

They are 'talking' to the banks as regards funding for transfers.

A lot of talking, but no fecking doing. I really don't know how they can keep a straight face when speaking to fans these days, I am sure the rehearsed replies are an embarrassment to many politicians. Even Paxman would walk away defeated with these slippery fuckers.

That describes what the chairman and his board think of Everton fans in general.

It is not up to the directors or anyone else at the club whether or not proxies in general, or any nominated person in particular, may be granted entrance to the meeting. If a shareholder submits the form to the club (more than 48 hours prior to the notified start time of the meeting) the named proxy has a legal right to attend. There may be exceptions (e.g. if the named person is subject to some kind of restraining order?), but the law and the club's own articles of association are quite clear: a shareholder has both the right to attend in person, and the right to send a proxy in his/her place.

Incidentally, most of Bill Kenwright's shares and ALL of Robert Earl's are owned not by those named individuals, but by limited companies, trusts or in nominee accounts. Were your "no proxies" rule imposed, Robert Earl would not be allowed in (and nobody else could vote using the shares he owns) and Bill's voting power would be hugely diminished.

Come to think of it, I think under those rules Jon Woods would own more than 50% of all shares able to vote at any general meeting and could thus do whatever the f*** he liked despite only owning around 20% of the company. So, you know, there may be a flaw in your thinking somewhere.

But instead it will probably end up a farce with militant groups and the board both just trying to score points on each other ending in all sides blaming each other for the lack of substance in the meeting. You can see the positioning already, started by the mythical Mr Tolman's battle cry earlier on this week.

Until we get a buyer who's interest is genuine AND leaks into the public domain so that we can support it, I don't see anything changing any time soon.

And where have I said that it represents anyone that does not agree with the way the club is run? I specifically used the words 'groups', not individuals. Why always the need to twist things to suit your agenda? I have called you out on this before, can you not just be honest? No need to make things up.

FInally, the word 'militant' was used as a direct reference to someone using 'brothers in arms' which you obviously don't know is military reference. Unless of course it was a reference to fellow Dire Straits fans of course.

The term "militant was used as a direct reference to someone using brothers in arms." As if.

Any chance that the new Emir of Qatar has a soft spot for the Blues?

Unless of course you believe I also work for Google on top of my job with Everton and am able to doctor search results.

Your losing it big time.

Peter,
Exactly.

I don't mean the Echo. They don't count. It may be telling, depending on which stance they take.

Be smart, play the game by the rules as laid down, be patient and ask them pertinent questions in a polite manner - even if your blood might be boiling - most of all don't let them off the hook by using abusive language - I'm not suggesting for one minute that those attending would do that at any time - but the people who own the club would be very happy to see the meeting become a slanging match then they can slink off without giving any answers to legitimate questions.

You as shareholders may only number in the hundreds but you represent thousands as do those people who have been entrusted as representatives of those who can't be there, act with class and dignity like you usually do and watch as those in the hot seat squirm.

I read that no-one will be admitted once the meeting has commenced. Given that registration is, as you say, time-consuming and laborious, would it be paranoid to suggest that there is scope for people to be barred from attendance on the grounds of not having registered on time?

James makes a valid point re the Law, however. perhaps it would be better if just the shareholders attend.... if others are keen to be involved then become one.

I have no liking for this board but it was possibly the attendance of so many proxies that brought about the divide between board and the key group of loyal fans.

What makes it worse, is that the whole idea and subsequent research and development came from Keioc. It was an idea that would be for the benefit of the region and both clubs. Remember the prospectus, shouted down by many on this very site.

Low and behold, the shite have adopted a great idea, while that fat headed gobshite and his tax avoiding 'friends of the club' do fuck all. Just as expected.

I hear what you're saying, but I think maybe you've got the whole proxies thing a little back to front.

The concept wasn't invented so that people who couldn't afford to buy shares in a company could nonetheless geg into meetings like this and listen to blokes in suits discuss EBITDA and price/earnings ratios for a couple of hours. Honestly, it's not a benefit or right accorded to the appointed proxy, it's for the benefit of the shareholder who appoints him/her.

Take Tom above, he works away and can't make it tomorrow night. Should he lose his right to vote on any resolutions put to the meeting because of that? Or Mr Kenrick of this parish, he lives in the US. Should he be denied the exercise of his shareholder rights because he moved away? He's already suffering by surrounding himself with yanks! ;-)

Even some local shareholders are in their eighties or nineties and don't get out much at all. Maybe there are some in care homes or perhaps they've just had triple bypass surgery or are battling cancer.

There are any number of reasons why a shareholder may not be able to attend the meeting in person, none of which means they've forfeited their right to be represented at the meeting. As shareholders, they have the right to have their voice heard and their vote counted.

The law gives them the option of exercising those rights through a designated person who acts on their behalf. And I think if you consider the cases and hypotheticals I've outlined above, you'll agree that's the way it should be.

It may well be the case that in this instance you are just been plain mischievous, I'm sure that your comments aren't down to ignorance. However for clarity, Proxy's are mechanism that have been used from "militants" from both sides of the great divide. The 100 or so that have been declared on the O/S pale into insignificance when the Chairman can call on 1000s, by default by the way of Shareholders who do not nominate a proxy or attend the meeting.

Carl Sanderson 301; In a word YES, I would advise all Shareholders ( or their proxy ) to be in the Philharmonic Hall with plenty of time to spare or face the prospect of facing a lock out.The only thing I think we can guarantee is the Bill, the Board and Robert will be bullish and provocative. They have ignored all overtures to convene a General Meeting and reinstate them rather than be forced into it via the requestion.

If our beloved Club spent as much time on looking for sponsorship, investment and delivering a business plan that moved the Club forward rather than plotting and scheming against Fans and Fan Groups. Maybe we would also be working in partnership with Liverpool City Council on projects worth £260 million and promoting The Football Quarter for the benefit of the Club and the Community that has served us so well for over 120 years

They don't deserve respect as they show none.

"Has the board any plans to stop treating supporters like fucking idiots?"

"are you telling us that in the past the committee hasnt sort out permission from non attendees to use their right of proxy??"

If you're referring to the Executive Committee of the Shareholders' Association, first of all hardly anyone currently on the committee was on it last time the club had a General Meeting, so this committee certainly hasn't. Previous Chairmen and Secretaries have at times been nominated as proxies by shareholders (members and non-members of the Association) who were unable to attend.

To my knowledge there has never been any kind of organised effort on the part of the Association to match up shareholders who can't attend with a long list of non-shareholders wanting to stand as proxies. But then the SA goes back to 1938 which is just a little before my time. So I suppose anything is possible.

As to how many people genuinely can't attend, I'd point out that the meeting has been scheduled for 6PM on a weekday. A quick check of the register shows there are 944 entries with a post code other than "L" (Liverpool) or "CH" (which includes the Wirral). Some of those are duplicates and some are actually local address but nobody's bothered to put the postcode in (the register REALLY needs some data cleaning!). There'll be a few in Wigan, Southport, Warrington, etc outside those post code areas too and there's a couple dozen with no known address at all.

But there's nearly 100 outside the UK alone, and more than twice that just in London and the surrounding area. Add in other areas of the UK more than an hour's drive away and and there's probably 500 or more who can't come if they work 9-5.

Many of those non-locals are people who've moved away but still have family in the city. Is it really so unreasonable to suppose that 100 people have independently nominated a parent/sibling/cousin/mate/etc?

Seriously, don't go looking for conspiracies where none exist.

I just read an article on KEIOC, nothing new there, we all know their position but following the link at the bottom there are a few bombshells with regard to claims Everton have had people dressed as press photographers taking pictures of fans??? Outrageous if true. http://www.scribd.com/doc/149869298/It-s-Complicated

We have a common enemy.

We have this in common: we have a common oppressor, a common exploiter, and a common discriminator.

But once we all realise that we have this common enemy, then we unite on the basis of what we have in common.

And what we have foremost in common is that enemy: the board.

They're an enemy to all of us......

"Maybe James could answer the first: Why have Everton printed a list of shareholders and their nominated proxies? Isn't this subject to the Data Protection Act as the club have been supplied by this and I'm guessing that the shareholders' names and addresses aren't just published?"

I don't know why they've published the list of proxies. It has given us (slightly) advance notice that some proxy forms (at least some of them hand delivered prior to the deadline) have not been properly recorded. See Tom Hughes's and Dave Kelly's comments above for just a couple of examples.

I doubt that was the intention though.

Interesting question on the DPA though. I'm no expert on data protection, but the names of shareholders in any UK company are available to the public via the registrar unless you conceal your ownership through a nominee account or in some other way (just as a random example, you could own shares through a company registered in an offshore tax haven with a less open regulatory regime than the UK).

On the other hand, I think the DPA says you can only use collected data for the the specific purpose(s) for which it was collected. In the case of proxies, the club collected their names so that they could be identified on entry to the meeting. There's no indication on the stuff I got from the club that any proxy I named would have his/her name published on the web.

I don't think it's much of an issue though. It's first and last name only - no addresses, phone numbers or other similar information. Frankly even if it is an issue for a few of those listed, I suspect those who should be listed and aren't have a bigger gripe.

Is anyone planning on doing a report for the site on what happens?

What in full breakdown is in "Other operating costs"? How have we gone from £2.5M under Johnson to £23-24M under BK?

Finch Farm is £1.5M and loan allegedly now £4M, – where is the rest going to?

An answer to this question in my opinion will reveal all ills at our club.

Thanks

Thanks for the link to the Keioc article.
Anyone not sure or indecisive about the carry on at our club should read this report.
It's there in black and white.
How this chairman and his board get away with it is beyond me.

It takes a very naive person to be fooled by the lies and phoney boys pen,holes in my shoes tales.Or a sycophant,of which there are one or two on ToffeeWeb.
No names mentioned,you know who you are.

That's one area of expertise where they always excel.

We would have been better off if that bloke from Carlisle who had wanted to buy MUFC in the 80s had taken over rather than True Blue Bill.

My question would be along the lines of... Show me the money, specifically what is in the annual £20M+ other operating costs?

Will ToffeeWeb have people there to give us all chapter and verse of the Q & A?

There to see he is not implicated in his absence no doubt!

Calamity Kenshite says "We was talking and working with LCC on new sites"
a prophetic "Oh no you aren't you lying bastard" from the back,
"Who is that?" from Bobby Elstone,
"I'm the Mayor" followed by silence

Almost as funny as when he tried the same lie with Warren Bradley...