Unmasking the power behind the throne

Congrats to him / her for doing it as its a measured and objective critique of the board's dealings. Do Bill and Co actually have to respond though? (If the activity is legal?)

The whole point being made by the Watched Toffee guy is that this is illegal (and he makes a convincing case for that claim).

A very interesting and alarming article.

One last point, a request to ToffeeWeb to give this article a little more prominence like they did the article in Friday's Mirror. The Watched Toffee articles are interesting but not as much as the fascinating debate, the last produced a thread of over 500.

Barry 4
If you check probably 400 of the posts in the last thread were generated in response to that one person. Apparently he suffers from something called Confirmation Bias, apparently it was self-diagnosed... He'll be on shortly.

How Bill oversees the finances of the club might be many things but where's the smoking gun this is eg tax avoidance or money laundering?

What does puzzle me however, is why wouldn't Green underwrite the money needed for the KD fiasco? Even if he's got the reputation of being someone who spends little to get maximum profit. Surely this location would have been perfect (even more so than DK) for commercial potential.

1. He should have waited until we had lost a game before posting it; it will now be largely lost in the noise of a famous victory.

2. He needs to tighten up his writing, just to elaborate / explain his points and dot-connecting a bit better and make the whole thing more accessible.

What exactly does this 'forensic deconstruction' do that you were hoping for?

I don't see anything that 'proves' anything here. Lots of dots as some have pointed out. How you want to join them up I guess depends on your outlook.

As for your point about writing style being 'elaborate', well that's the point really. Throw lots of stuff about and hope it sticks.

I mean I got to learn Philip Green has a lot of business dealings, sells lots of women's clothes, has a large business network and that corporate financing is a complicated business. No shit Sherlock.

I mean having read it the main accusation seems to be Philip Green is breaking PL rules by being the real owner of the Club and not disclosing it. Even then by his own admission he then hopes investigative journalists will 'search out the truth'. Because quite frankly he has shown nothing yet.

Auditors will 'qualify' accounts if they find anything amiss and risk professional and legal consequences if they ignore such findings.

All these 'revelations' are fascinating and grist for the Everton gossip mill but are, I suspect, not untypical of what goes on in businesses all over the globe. As has been pointed out by one or two before me, hard evidence of malfeasance will be required for the authorities to take more than a passing interest.

Pardon me if I have a few days away from the mudheap of club governance to glory in yesterday's team victory .

This latest "expose?" It definitely has the same seriousness and credibility as the last one.

Earl and Woods are quite happy as long as we are on the Premier League gravy train, and Bill doesn't have the financial muscle or the will to take us into the 21st Century. (Unfortunately, his rumoured illness may be his main concern for some time; I hope he makes a full recovery.)

I believe we will be bought out within the next five years, just because of the age or ill-health of those currently on the board. Let's hope any new owners haven't got to start from scratch re stadium issues. We have already wasted enough time.

Really sad.

Your hero has made us one of the also-rans, you really are making this up as you go along!!

I could go back further to the Mersey Millionaire era but all this has been repeated to you a thousand times and you just keep coming back with the drivel!!

I have been going for over 50 years and the Kenwright era has been the most divisive, in my opinion. The missed opportunities and lies during his tenure have been far worse than at any other time I can remember.

Maybe I expect more after watching us win the league in '63 and then onwards; however, the apathy shown in this Board's reign is beyond comprehension.

So Martin, I do not in any way agree with you that my post is an overused or hackneyed myth. My opinion of course.

And yes, the blogger has "shown nothing (superlatively) yet", but that's not quite within either his remit or his gift; he's trying, from what I can deduce, to lay a foundation for more thorough investigation by those with the resources to do so, specifically, journalists. Just because he hasn't got there yet doesn't mean he shouldn't try, nor does it merit your contempt for his efforts. This is the single most important Everton-centric subject there is at present; it warrants scrutiny, diligence and bloody mindedness because until it is favourably resolved (or the participants at the club retire or expire), Everton FC will continue to fossilise in its intolerable stasis.

Well what a surprise look who's on this thread, Bill Kenwrights Press Officer, Martin Mason.

I think the big problem here is that people are confusing our board's investment inertia with illegality.

Everton FC isn't the first business to have unclear ownership, bizarre funding streams and an apparent lack of purpose. It's a business we all love and while I have little time for this board, I can't help feeling that the illegality argument is barking up the wrong tree.

I'd love to know the motives of Green, Elstone et al, but isn't the real issue here the club's lack of ppurpose, direction and leadership?

But it doesn't 'reveal explicitly the true structure of the club ownership and it's financial standing'

It justs throws a whole lot of stuff around, makes a whole lot of assertions but ultimately shows nothing that in my opinion would merit any accusation of malpractice or illegality.

And as for being the most Everton centric subject, well not in my life. I'm more interested in Swansea away, when Leighton is going to be fit again and whether if Kiev get knocked out of the CL Yarmolenko might be on the cards again.

And therein lies the nub, I suspect most fans care about what happens on the field and don't really give a shit about who bought what when with whose money.

Mind you I hope they keep flying that plane, it's working wonders.

Is there anyone able to decipher just what the bloody hell this means ?

Given Jose Mourinho's post match delusional waffle (broken computers etc) I suspect that the two sources could well be one and the same. I certainly hope so, it would be scary indeed if there was a matching (possibly breeding) pair at liberty.

I doubt the two ever have any direct contact although when 'the book-keeper' steps out of line he'll find himself summoned to the Godfather's yacht moored somewhere near Cannes. Nothing personal, just business.

I had trouble understanding it myself but copied it into google translate from Martian to English and apparently it means:

"The problem is not that some fans are happy to drift along in lower top half to mid table in a dilapidated stadium. The problem is that some Evertonians expect more and don't realise the club has been mismanaged for over forty years. But they're a lunatic minority and don't represent most fans the way I do"

Bobby Thomas - you beat me to it. Laughable and sad in equal measure.

If you remember Leeds and Portsmouth, this didn't end well for other of them.

I am going to bed now, I better check under the bed for monsters I think!!

Despite the attempts to trivialise the article or its content (with no specific points ever referred to), there are a whole host of issues and potentially serious ramifications, legal and otherwise.

As shown, if Green is or has been a major and influential shareholder there are certain legal obligations. Conversely, if BK's acquisition of his stake in the club has been part-financed via a third party through profitable loan arrangements..... being paid for out of club funds, then there is a whole change of perception issue.... whereby true blue bill will have carpet-bagged his beloved club. In itself, not necessarily illegal, but hardly the motives of a true fan either.

It would also raise several questions about the activities, and decision-making processes surrounding all of the relocation failures. For instance, if Green is or was a part-owner, or if we were financially beholden to him in any way, was he, as a retail mogul over-influencial on the ilconceived Kirkby scheme? Going back a little further, was Kings Dock scuppered to help facilitate the later retail-led scheme or just preserve BK's chairmanship?

As I said, a whole host of other questions would be generated..... some concerning legal issues. ..... and probably many more concerning how such a structure would be in our best interests...... especially given our resultant track record of failures during the period referred to.

Over 25,000 people read the first article..... and the discussion on this site alone led to 500+posts, which would suggest that many supporters can and do look beyond the importance of the last or the next game, or the next new signing when considering all things Everton.

However I wouldn't confuse these groups with people who profess not to give a shit about the reasons why we are where we are, only to find them posting on every thread discussing the issue or those that demand proof of a fundamental problem with the club's hierarchy then, once shown, simply dismiss it and continue posting their mindless drivel, these are nothing but wums.

I read Watched Toffee's latest offering on Friday night, read it again yesterday tbh as I was open mouthed after reading it the first time. How anyone can dismiss the allegation that Green organised a special audit at Goodison, that led to the dismissal of a senior figure due to a £3m anomaly is, frankly, beyond me. The suggestion is that these are the actions of somebody acting as either a shadow or a de facto director as described by the 2006 Companies Act and these new allegations appear to be far too specific to be ignored by both the fanbase and the club who must now act to clear their name or as Barry #4 said, "will their silence provide confirmation that all is not what it appears to be"

The High Court has spelt out what this means in practice, "on the question of who must be accustomed to act, this means that a governing majority of the board must be accustomed to act in accordance with the directions or instructions of the alleged shadow director. The purpose of the legislation (CA2006) is to catch a person who effectively controls the running of the company by controlling the board."

In addition to this, Watched Toffee has published which of the Premier League rules these allegations would transgress including the serious consequences for the club if proven to be the case, hardly a matter to simply dismiss once understood.

None of us here have any idea whether what is being alleged is true or not but I can add two things to the allegation, one is that Philip Green definitely paid Paul Gregg for the shares now registered in the BVI and secondly I know that the Premier League has been told before that Green was acting as a shadow but they chose to ignore it.

Getting back to why all this is important, football clubs exist for one reason, to win, to win matches and to win trophies, it's all about winning, that's why people support them, people don't support Everton because they have a free school or they win the award for the best fuckin' sarnie in the Premier League, we only hear of all of that nonsense because it's a distraction away from the fact that fuck all is going on commercially which does have an effect on our ability to win.

Goodison was rocking on Saturday, the St End was in fine voice leaving the fans to go home happy after beating the reigning champions. Winning and taking decisions that allow the club to win are all that really matter to a football club and their fans, anybody attempting to tell you any different is nothing but an apologist for a group of people having your kecks off. Yes the win against Chelsea was great, it was well deserved but with little strength in depth it's almost impossible to sustain performances like this as the season continues and the inevitable toll from injuries and suspensions takes effect.

As the Premier League progressed over the years, as clubs generated untold millions of their own, in addition to the media payments, to spend on their squads, Everton, under this board, fell behind, they've stagnated and no statistic proves this better than comparing their average finishing position for the sixteen years this board has been in power, 9th, against the preceding sixteen years which is also 9th yet at least that was a period when we won eight trophies as opposed to zero trophies in the Kenwright era, so describing Everton as being stagnant is being kind; no wonder the club provided false information to the Mirror's David Maddocks, telling him that the average was 6th, then again, nobody really expects them to tell the truth about anything anymore, perhaps not surprising when it looks like the whole club is built on a lie.

If there is nothing to hide, then the people running the club have nothing to worry about, is that the true position,I very much doubt it.

If you are going to quote me, at least use a quote of something I actually said.

As I have said many times, I have no problem with challenging the Board's record, we should all want our club to be more successful.

I even understand why people who want this Board out would seek to find evidence of wrongdoing. It would make their position very precarious. But they haven't!

Colin #29

You insist they "must now act to clear their name" but guess what, no they don't. Until there is hard evidence that the PL or other regulatory authorities actually investigate, they have to do nothing. That may piss you off but it's the reality of the situation.

I also find it enlightening that anyone who seems to have a different opinion or interprets things differently to you is a 'wum'.

I have no problem if you think my posts are 'mindless drivel', my English teacher used to give me similar feedback, but it's my mindless drivel which I maintain the right to post.

As for your insinuation that I was talking about your mindless drivel you're wrong again, my comments weren't directed at you but obviously that nasty teacher's comments during your formative years must have scared you for life!!! Carry on fella, you're entertaining if nothing else.

Is the involvement of Green & Earl good for the stewardship of E.F.C either financially, or from a commercial standpoint? If you are completely honest, and don't want to play devil's advocate, you have to conclude we are just a vehicle for their own personal gain. Clearly, Kenwright is quite happy to be led by the nose by these two, as long as he can hold on to the office of Chairman.

I wouldn't have thought you require a PhD in forensic accountancy to reach the conclusions above.

It is then it gets murky. As we don't really know who eventually (through the course of many transactions) paid that purchase money back.

This then leads to the 'who actually owns EFC' question. It remains to be answered. However, this article and the previous article are going further than any other into uncovering the many layers.

There's been nothing concrete. No smoking gun....yet. However, many questions are now being asked by many. This can only be a positive thing.

For me, if PG is the true owner of EFC, just come out and admit it.

Being a suspicious bugger, I think the article pointed out that Gregg was willing to provide the funds required. I think that would have been with the condition that Kenwright would be required to step down; I think that Gregg was so pissed off at Kenwright's shenanigans that he wouldn't just provide the funds and see Kenwright continue running the club.

That's why I think the deal never got off the ground as Kenwright wanted to retain control so that he had his very own train set. The fact that it was about to crash, never seemed to unduly worry him.

It seems to me that Green couldn't come out and publicly underwrite any funds for the stadium or he'd have been well in the spotlight, rather than just being a "good fiend oops, I meant Friend" to Everton.

It'd be great to have been a fly on the wall during the saga of the King's Dock. I can't help thinking that Gregg knew that Kenwright was a Walter Mitty type and would not just sign up for Kenwright to continue in charge at the new stadium... or anywhere else.

For all Kenwright being a "True Blue" and Gregg not being a football supporter, I think Gregg would have got us that Stadium and would have made a far better fist of propelling EFC into the big time at the Dock.

Now seeing as there's a Billionaire who is a good friend to Everton hovering about with good advice, and two multi-millionaires (don't know if Earl's a Billionaire or not but seems to have a few bob), it makes me wonder what this high-powered team of super businessmen are going to do, if Walton Hall Park goes tit's up. Give Goodison another lick of paint?

There are so many things that have never added up at Everton and the tiny number of Directors, particularly as one is Robert Earl who clearly has little or no real interest in Everton, is one of them.

If you are looking at possible motives, the current situation gives BK the kudos of being Chairman of something he holds dear, an emotional gain, whilst in the background sit people cold bloodedly watching the asset increase in potential value as the EPL gravy train continues to mushroom.

It explains why they don't really want to sell it unless somebody offers way over the current value. That's obviously very unlikely and explains the fruitless '24/7' search.

In the meantime, no major investment will be allowed. We are net sellers over the last few years too, before anybody mentions Lukaku, just remember the Fellaini money.

I also know of a journalist who asked questions on this subject, discreetly to Club employees a few years back, and was immediately warned off. This was a no go subject, which had to arouse suspicion I think.

Potentially this is very damaging because if the FA do find wrongdoing we could be penalised on the pitch and who knows where that might end?

"For me, if PG is the true owner of EFC, just come out and admit it."

I have read watched toffees' article, and my understanding gleaned from the content is that in the unlikely event that Phillip Green did "admit it" or that he is a shadow director, the League would be compelled to ask "since when" or risk being accused of turning a blind eye to a serious breach of the rules - a breach that could lead to the suspension of Everton FC from playing matches. This would be a scandal of the highest order with far reaching effects for EPL.

I would be interested in feedback from other posters with a degree of knowledge of corporate affairs if my understanding is correct or am I way off track here?

Don't forget the Kings Dock had financial involvement to varying degrees from the EU, NWDA, LCC and plus there was no need for a Retail park down there with Liverpool 1 coming down the tracks.

Who knows eh? But I suspect there is more to be revealed yet.

That's why the stadium project for Kirkby was dressed up as a community/leisure facility needing a large enabling scheme to help fund it... because there was no other way that the retail development would ever get under the radar without it.

There was little or no concern for the suitability and viability of the site or the stadium itself....... for that was never the main objective for the real drivers of this project.

If Green helped drive that whole process from Kings Dock onwards, at the expense of our best interests, then it sets a whole different tone to how we assess our board's performance for that period... and only highlights the importance of knowing the facts concerning our ownership structure.

Look at that example with the BHS properties, all either bought then mortgaged or bought through a mortgage, it's not too clear, then charged rent, that presumably cover the mortgage and yielded a return, which ended up offshore so no tax to the treasury again.

Maybe he wouldn't fund the KD because the joint ownership would have prevented arranging a mortgagor any other type of finance because of title problems? Kirkby was a long lease so maybe that was the plan to make up the shortfall from the wishlist?

Gregg was always adamant that the reverse mortgage would have secured the KD; nobody will ever know if that path would have brought more success or would have brought failure, it did look great though.

Looking at how Green works, it's impossible not to see a certain amount of synergy. I'd concede that it could just be two businesses exhibiting efficiency but this audit, no way would an adviser do all that and the threat to blow the whistle by Wyness? Not easily dismissed, in my opinion.

"We have the opportunity to have the finest arena, the finest football stadium, in the world. The experts have told us, in no uncertain terms, it can be a success. I'm very excited. We are not going to let this chance pass us by."

Bill Kenwright.

They are incredibly rich anyway. You would think their long term aim would be to make money from the sale of the club, but the way the club is marketed off the pitch, is it actually worth much?

Kings Dock, Kirkby and now Walton Hall Park... it just seems like nothing is going on regarding a new stadium. Meanwhile, just about every club in England has a new ground.

Chairman: BIll Kenwright... Say no more.

Robert Earl: Spurs fan, never attends matches ever. Officially he bought the Gregg shares, although we know Philip Green actually paid for them. Arrived in the Sly Stallone smokescreen. Sly's never been heard of again in nearly a decade. Also involved with companies operating out of the same building as perpetual lender of money to EFC at over-the-odds interest rates, Vibrac, in the BVI... coincidental? Hmmm. Well I really couldn't comment on that, but to me it seems he's either a front for someone else or a carpetbagger.

Have we ever seen an example of his business acumen to drive EFC forward? I can't think of any in over 8 years, unless you count Kirkby, but surely we can't count that now knowing what we know from the Public Enquiry.

Jon Woods: Deputy Chairman. Friend of Bill, by his side in the Directors Box. Rarely speaks publicly, but when he does it's usually with disdain about anybody daring to question the Goodison regime. At least he's an Evertonian, but hardly a driving force in anything it seems. More of a passenger.

That's actually it; three people!

We also have a CEO, Robert Elstone, who was not an Evertonian till he took the job. Often takes flak, he seems to be doing as he's told and doing the day-to-day stuff. I'd expect he's not as innocent as he seems, but possibly he doesn't know all the story either. His predecessors Wyness, Birch and Dunford have all been sworn to secrecy it seems as well.

The Deputy CEO, Denise Barrett Baxendale has overseen the continued rise of the Everton in the Community scheme over the last few years. She appears to have more energy, drive and ideas than the rest of them put together.

Other than that ,we have 1970's Director Keith Tamlin as Vice Life President. The Life President, Sir Phillip Carter, died recently. Both these posts are just advisory I'd say and to pad out the apparent numbers. We also have other workhorses doing Finance, Operations, Secretary etc, but these aren't Board members either.

So really our Board is just Bill and a couple of silent, inactive cohorts (Earl and Wood) as far as I can see. It really is a Dictatorship of sorts. Can this really be so??? Really?

http://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2015/sep/18/glazers-manchester-united-15m-dividend-greg-dyke

Arsenal's article: http://www.espnfc.us/arsenal/story/2618969/arsenal-have-1931-million-in-cash-reserves-as-profits-rise

From what I could decipher (because the article is a dreadful piece of composition to my mind) the Glazers have had the kecks off Man Utd, stand to make a fortune and saddle the club with all the liabilities.

The comical thing is that the FA are being cited as not commenting upon the proceedings! Why should they? There must be numerous business models within the EPL alone.

The major addition to this second article is the stunning revelation that Bill Kenwright borrowed money to buy his shares. The security for the loan was the shares, like when you buy a house on a mortgage. Football club shares being riskier than property the bank required a guarantor. This means that if BK didn't make the payments then the bank would sell the shares for the best price they could get and the guarantor would make up the difference. BK made the payments, there was no "leverage" as the Glazers did in putting debt on the club.

I bought two shares last year as gifts for family members. After making the payments the sale needed to be scrutinised at a board meeting. This would appear to be standard practice. After scrutiny the share certificates were issued to them in their names posted to their address. This is all recorded by the club. Robert Earl's shares will have gone through the same process.

Earl may have borrowed money to make the purchase and pledged the shares against the loan but ask yourself how likely it is that Earl would need to do that. Were his shares to be transferred to a third party the transfer would need to go to the board and it would be a matter of record.

Robert Earl was interviewed on a US chat show. The interviewer raised the matter of his directorship at Everton. Earl said that we were "America's club" having Tim Howard on board. When asked what he got out of his involvement he said "Death threats." Given the level of comment on here, about Earl and others, and its savage nature, it may be that he wasn't kidding.

Readers will gather that I am unimpressed with the level of "evidence" quoted in the articles and astonished how others can take it all at face value but I shall, in sadness because of what it means for the club, eat humble pie when the cohort of investigative journalists in contact with the author expose the wrongdoings of those associated with EFC.

Finally, it may be that "Watched Toffee" isn't paranoid, they (whoever they are, answers on a postcard) really are out to get him.

By the sound of it I don't think you really read the articles.... or certainly not fully.

Also, given the FA seems to behave like a Wild West sheriff on the take, we might never find out the truth... even if 'Watched Toffee' is closer to it than most would like to believe.