04/03/2025 42comments  |  Jump to last

Minority Everton shareholders, who fear the recent takeover of the club has led to a dramatic collapse in the value of their shares, have had a request to meet the new owner, The Friedkin Group (TFG), rejected by interim CEO Colin Chong.

There are about 1,500 individual supporters who together own 7,912 shares, which before Everton were sold by Farhad Moshiri to TFG in December, amounted to 5% of the club.

Ian Kilbride, a lifelong fan of the club and businessman calculates that his own stake has dropped in value from £680,000 to about £35,000, based on the price of £3,400 he paid to increase his total number of shares to 200 in November.

That was the last time when shares were being privately traded at auction, for a median price of £3,400. But the £400M takeover of the club by TFG led to the creation of huge number of additional shares, increasing the total from 135,000 to more than 1.6 million. 

This simple and seemingly arbitrary decision has decimated the value of the stake held by small shareholders to now less than 0.5%, leaving concerned fans estimating that each individual share has plummeted in value from £3,400 to as little as £175.

Kilbride, who has the support of former Everton director Cliff Finch and other minority shareholders who have made a significant investment in the club, met members of the Everton board on February 4 in the hope of securing an offer from TFG for their shares.

At the meeting, Kilbride asked Colin Chong, Everton’s interim Chief Executive Officer, if he could organise a meeting with TFG, led by American Dan Friedkin, to discuss the issue directly. However, Chong responded on February 11 by saying that TFG did not consider such a meeting necessary.  

“I and others are now left with the feeling that more than 1,500 Evertonians, who are actually shareholders, are not worth a 30-minute meeting in the eyes of TFG,” Kilbride told The Times. “This is not a reasonable, sensible or, given the way the shareholder value has been destroyed, [an] honourable way to behave.”

Finch, who served as a director when Peter Johnson was Everton Chairman in the late 1990s, still has 50 shares in the club, despite selling some to Kilbride last year. Even now, he is staring at a potential loss of more than £130,000. Another supporter of Kilbride may have lost more than twice that amount.

“I am not so worried about myself, but the little guy has been cast aside here,” Finch said. “Morally, there should be an obligation here for the principal owners to do the right thing.”

According to the most recent documents, the estate of the late chairman, Bill Kenwright, is the biggest of the minority shareholders with 1,750 shares and facing potential losses of as much as £5M.

Quotes sourced from The Times


Reader Comments (42)

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 ()


Mike Gaynes
1 Posted 04/03/2025 at 15:34:34
Seems like you're blaming Chong for something that wasn't his call.

It would appear we're getting short shrift from TFG, not Chong.

Eric Myles
2 Posted 04/03/2025 at 15:36:29
Don't these guys that buy shares read the small print that says the value may go down?

Some obviously thought they would make loadsa money buying up shares at the announcement of a takeover so it's just tough shit that they guessed wrong.

I suspect that the majority of the small shareholders just own a single share and are in it for sentimental reasons, not to make money.

And the headline is a bit misleading if it was actually TFG that refused the meeting, not Colin Chong.

Eric Myles
3 Posted 04/03/2025 at 15:48:06
And I take exception to this "minority shareholders who have made a significant investment in the club"

Buying a share off of another shareholder makes no investment into the Club at all, it just enriches the private seller who the share was bought from.

Dennis Stevens
4 Posted 04/03/2025 at 15:58:40
Indeed, Eric, I doubt many of the shares were bought directly from the Club.

Andy Riley
5 Posted 04/03/2025 at 16:05:17
I'm a single shareholder and not really concerned with this.

The Times article mentions that the estate of BK may have lost circa £5 million in the TFG takeover but I'd be interested to learn what the overall profit of BK was since he purchased (with others) the majority shareholding from Peter Johnson and then sold on to Moshiri?

Talek Cox
6 Posted 04/03/2025 at 16:20:56
The minority shareholders will possibly seek corporate lawyers to advise on this (perhaps together). It is true that the issue and allotment of new shares will diminish the value of existing shares due to the increase of supply of the total amount of shares in circulation.

I know for a fact what the corporate lawyers would be looking for.

Are there any tag along rights in Everton's constitution allowing the minority shareholders to trigger a sale to The Friedkin Group at the same price as Moshiri's holding? And are there any rights of first refusal (pre-emption rights) allowing the minority shareholders the right of first refusal, and what are these terms?

Failing that, they could bring unfair prejudice claims but I think this is difficult to prove and realistically should be brought against the previous board and perhaps Moshiri.

Raymond Fox
7 Posted 04/03/2025 at 16:39:11
I've no axe to grind in this happening but it is a savage reduction in value.

I fear that the minority shareholders are going to have to scowl and bear it.

Jay Harris
8 Posted 04/03/2025 at 16:42:52
The real problem is the amount of debt (negative equity) that Moshiri and Kenwright built up which was why Moshiri had to take a bath and accordingly the other shareholders too –including minority shareholders.

Blame the previous board, not the new owners.

Allen Rodgers
9 Posted 04/03/2025 at 16:52:32
I can't see the point of a meeting between we shareholders / EFCSA and some functionary of TFG.

They would probably say — we don't want your shares, sell or keep them as you wish; nothing has changed vis-a-vis the number of shares available to the public.

They are hard-headed businessmen. They took away our 5% discount without even telling EFCSA. I don't expect anything from them except, hopefully, results on the field.

John Raftery
10 Posted 04/03/2025 at 16:54:52
The words ‘tough shit' spring to mind. TFG have said previously they have no intention of purchasing the minority shares. That is fine by me. I have no wish to sell. No minority shareholder will be selling at £175 or anything resembling that sum unless they are truly desperate.

The market for minority shares is governed by normal economic principles. Supply is limited. Demand is robust. Prices will be high.

Brent Stephens
12 Posted 04/03/2025 at 17:12:45
As Mike #1 says.
Kevin Molloy
13 Posted 04/03/2025 at 17:14:37
I understand Jenny Seagrove has challenged Dan Friedkin to single combat, with the loser forfeiting their life and all claims to profits from Blue Holdings.
Paul Hewitt
14 Posted 04/03/2025 at 17:20:17
Them shares will be worth a lot more when we win the Champions League.
Billy Shears
15 Posted 04/03/2025 at 18:12:25
It doesn't bode well by the sounds of it!
Colin Glassar
16 Posted 04/03/2025 at 18:48:40
There’s a new sheriff in town.
Dennis Stevens
17 Posted 04/03/2025 at 19:41:02
I've always fancied having a solitary share, just for sentimental reasons really. Waiting to see if they drop to double figures before I commit myself!
Michael Kenrick
18 Posted 04/03/2025 at 20:03:10
This really comes down to the decision to issue the seemingly arbitrary number of 1,336,537 new shares. Why such a huge and unprecedented number of new shares?

I feel sure the takeover could have been completed with a smaller number of shares being created. Let's say instead they had issued 77,813 new shares.

The capitalization would be for the same amount — £233M — but a share value of £3,000 could have been maintained, and the minor shareholding at least treated with some respect.

This is Trumpian in its transactional arrogance, underlined by the refusal to meet.

Bloody Yanks!

Ian Bennett
19 Posted 04/03/2025 at 20:30:38
The way that it's been handled is poor.

I'd assume the price of the minority shares equals what Moshiri got when he sold his?

If that's the case, then isn't that just an update on an unquoted share price?

And perhaps a reflection that the £3.4k placed was an unrealistic price on the business that was a) heavily loss making b) failing psr c) teetering on the edge of the Championship d) heavily indebted to Rights & Media, 777 Partners, Wonga, Moshiri etc?

Stephen Williams
20 Posted 04/03/2025 at 21:01:27
There have been at least two references to the shares issued being ‘arbitrary'. Having advised on corporate transactions for over 30 years, I've never come across any such transaction bring arbitrary.

In this case, I strongly suspect that TFG took the value of the company (which had been massively eroded by losses and increased debt over the Moshiri years) on a cash-free / debt-free basis and divided it by the shares in issue. This gives a value per share used to calculate the number of new shares required to eliminate crippling debt.

This is the calculation that minority buyers in November should have undertaken. If they had then no one would have even considered £3,400 per share.

Alternatively, perhaps they paid that amount because that's the fair value of emotional investment?

Either way, this is not the responsibility of TFG.

Michael Kenrick
21 Posted 04/03/2025 at 21:54:15
Thanks for posting, Stephen @20. See if this makes sense to you:

You may have seen that this was a two-stage transaction.

In the first stage, my understanding is that The Freidkin Group agreed to convert Moshiri's ~£451M sharehlder loans to equity via a share issue. 150,520 new shares were issued at an assigned price or value of £3,000 each, representing a sum of £450.75M.

If you add in the existing shares (127,031) on the same basis, that values the company at £855.75M — not bad for a Premier League club… but arguably well over-priced considering the dreadful years of PSR mismanagement and imminent financial ruin.

So to the second stage and it appears at this point that the value of the existing and new shares held was written down from £3k to £174.66 each, giving a total of ~£48.43M — which sounds like the kind of figure TFG could well have paid Moshiri for the company.

But the Company absolutely had to be recapitalized with an injection of funds for the repayment of other loans and to provide working capital. So the injection of ~£233.44M was secured by the creation of an additional 1,336,537 shares issued to TFG at that lower price.

Does that make sense to you?

Ian Bennett
22 Posted 04/03/2025 at 22:15:21
Can't see how the minority shareholders have a beef with TFG, if their shares are valued on the same basis as what Moshiri got paid out at.

Their issue was with how Moshiri ran the business. He squandered £100Ms+ and that wasn't factored into share price despite more loans being taken and more losses.

Willing buyers and sellers grossly overvalued the shares if the equity value was £856M.

The minority shareholders can't expect to be non-diluted by the cash injection made at fair market value to save a business that could have gone under.

Derek Thomas
23 Posted 04/03/2025 at 22:36:28
Single digit shareholders... especially long term, didn't buy 2 or 3 shares to make money. Anybody who bought in during the Moshiri / 777 / TFG hiatus took a chance.

Shares go up, shares go down - thems the breaks... mumble mumble something about not crying for Argentina, I get knocked down, I get up again, never bet more than you can afford to lose.

I still think my plan (on here about 3 months ago) about converting these 1500... and more?? into 'Legacy Shares' could work, maybe in conjunction with EitC or The Women's team.

Or is it just a whinge about the money?

Stephen Williams
24 Posted 04/03/2025 at 23:21:28
Michael,

I'm not familiar with the terms of the acquisition, precise capitalisations or the total debt with which the company was saddled. Whilst you advise components of this, I suspect that no-one (other than the buying and selling parties) will know the full picture.

However, thoughts on the possible scenario you map out are:

1. Conversion of debt to equity for the Moshiri loans could only have been effected by Moshiri, not TFG. Although I believe that this was done immediately prior to and in contemplation of the deal completing.

2. I am unfamiliar with the value of debt so converted and the equity issued. If this occurred at the c. £3k per share you suggest, then it would seem that this number was chosen to match historical share prices. This would make no difference to either Moshiri or TFG (or indeed to minority shareholders) because the consideration payable by TFG would be based on fair value – not historical share prices.

3. In a transaction, the total shares in issue (both the new shares and existing shares) would be valued by reference to the value of the company – not by reference to historical share transaction values. I have never seen a company valuation performed in any other way.

4. As I alluded to, the corporate value would be calculated on a cash-free / debt-free basis. In effect, surplus cash would increase the valuation and debt would reduce it. I can't imagine there was any surplus cash but I have no doubt that there was significant debt. Such debt would include, but not be limited to, any shareholder debt not capitalised, external debt of which there was an abundance, outstanding transfer fees due, liabilities outside of normal trading terms, debt baked into the system until the next tranche of TV and Commercial money comes in, remaining portion of season ticket money to the end of the season that had already been spent etc etc.

5. All of this would have been disclosed / assessed during Due Diligence.

6. Once the valuation has been computed, it is divided by the total shares in issue at the date of the transaction (after the Moshiri debt for equity swap) to arrive at a fair value per share.

7. Again, without have detailed knowledge, it would appear that the value per share was assessed at £174.66. This doesn't constitute a 'write-down' from £3k but instead would represent a fair value using a fresh pair of eyes.

8. As you indicate, a valuation of the company of £855M with all the financial problems that it faced would make no sense. So it is easy to see why TFG didn't recapitalise at anything like £3,400 per share.

Using your numbers, the value of the company post acquisition but before elimination of all the debt stood at £281m (£48m + £233m). Only full disclosure of the financial position would indicate whether this was fair.

Hope this helps.

Christine Foster
25 Posted 05/03/2025 at 01:02:29
Stephen, excellent analysis and whilst the exact terms of the deal with Moshiri is between the two parties, one can see why Jenny Seagrove was put out.

If Bill Kenwright was alive at the time, I am sure he would have attempted to "ringfence" his shareholding or insert a clause for purchase at a more preferable rate. (One wonders if a side deal was still done as she did object prior to purchase, hence a delay?)

Irrespective of that possibility, to be honest, Bill Kenwright made a considerable amount already out of the club and it was as a direct result of his and Moshiri's management that the small shareholders lost so much value.

There is also a significant difference between the "moms and pops" type of investment of sentiment and the larger investor of whom I have no sentiment for, they could have divested whilst the shares where higher in price but held on hoping for a windfall (which they may eventually get) but the "company" was bankrupt to all intents and purposes due to its major shareholders.

Any "rescue" deal, usually devalues small investors to oblivion... (well almost). Right now, if I had a couple of thousand to spare, I would buy as many I could and enjoy the ride with pride.

Eric Myles
26 Posted 05/03/2025 at 01:46:28
Stephen (and Michael) in my limited knowledge isn't the value of a company calculated by the value of it's assets (not just cash on hand) minus debt (plus intangibles like goodwill which may affect the sales price).

So you're saying that a company that has supposedly spent £750m on a shiny new asset (yes, I know the paid price may not be the true value) not counting other assets (players?) is only worth £281m? Was the debt so great (excluding Moshiri's who could not realistically expect to recover his money?) that the valuation is wiped out by so much?

Or am I being too simplistic?

Eric Myles
27 Posted 05/03/2025 at 02:26:43
Andy #5, Chairman Bill received around £40m for the shares he sold to Moshiri for which he paid £7m (of Anita Gregg's money).

Presumably he had to pay interest on that loan to Mrs. Gregg, and whoever took over the debt when her and her husband parted ways with the Club.

If the value of the remaining shares in the estate has also fallen to the £175 quoted then their value is now around £300k, down from around £5.5m

Derek Thomas
28 Posted 05/03/2025 at 03:20:46
Eric @ 27; Rumour has it, allegedly, that debt went on to the club books under the infamous 'Other Operation Expenses' and, again allegedly and as that share stake grew - so did 'Other Operatin Expenses'.

Net outlay in real terms; not one brass wazoo...allegedly.

Ian Wilkins
29 Posted 05/03/2025 at 07:38:55
It will be interesting to see what price Everton shares trade at…
The Accounting book value may suggest £175, but the reality is that there is no official market. TFG aren’t going to trade Everton shares, so any fluidity will only come from Minority shareholders.
Those who have bought at £3,500 will have no desire to sell at £175.
As ever, supply and demand will set the price.
Stephen Williams
30 Posted 05/03/2025 at 12:07:32
Eric,
A corporate valuation could be viewed in those simple terms - but it very rarely is. Each transaction will have its own many unique considerations. Your post has triggered further thoughts:

1. Any related debt will be applied against whatever value is attributed to the stadium thereby significantly reducing its value from its cost.
2. Ordinarily goodwill may be attributable given the club's Premier League status and all the revenue that goes with it. But as the club has been teetering on the edge of relegation for the last three seasons and, at the time of acquisition, that status was looking decidedly iffy, I suspect that there would be no Goodwill value. It could even be argued that the risks created some Badwill.
3. Given the 9 / 10 (?) players out of contract at the end of the season, I suspect that the carrying value of the squad was significantly diminished. Even the value of those still in contract will be significantly amortised as their contracts wind down.
4. To protect the club's Premier League income, TFG will be required to pump in significant funds to replace those players so I wouldn't be surprised if TFG factored this into the cost of the transaction.
5. Transactions normally take place between a willing buyer and a willing seller. Regarding buyers, there appeared to be a dearth of buyers who were ready and able to make the investment. Regarding Moshiri, he wasn't so much of a willing seller but more likely, a desperate one. It was clear that he was unable to fund the Club.
Together this makes a perfect storm to drive down value.

Michael Kenrick
31 Posted 05/03/2025 at 12:29:00
These are very welcome posts, Stephen, and you have done a great job of explaining factors that are likely to have influenced the structure of the final takeover deal.

Unfortunately, it seems highly unlikely that the minority shareholders will get anything better in terms of an explanation. Yes, it is what it is… and we just have to swallow it. But the bad blood created by the club over this is just unnecessary.

That's why I take a pop at Colin Chong in the OP. He is the link between fans and the new owners. What exactly is the Fan Advisory Board for if it isn't to see better communication between the club and this small but traditionally very significant portion of the fanbase over such an issue?

If TFG didn't want to meet, it was beholden upon Chong to persuade them to do so, in the interests of the club and its fans. Although being Americans, and from Texas, and therefore most likely Trumpian Republicans, they are no doubt emboldened to believe they can do whatever they hell they like without needing to explain themselves or to pacify anyone, no matter how aggrieved they may be.

Eric Myles
32 Posted 05/03/2025 at 13:36:18
Stephen #30 "Together this makes a perfect storm to drive down value."

But is it really 'value' that is being driven down or merely the purchase price?

It would seem obvious that TFG would not want the 'true' value of the Club to be diminished but to get the best deal on a distressed asset that is worth much more in reality than they paid for it.

But as Ian at #29 says, the share value will depend on what someone is willing to pay. So minority shareholders with the one share may well get their money back in sales to another sentimental purchaser, but I doubt the bloke with 200 shares will.

Also I doubt that if TFG were to put the Club up for sale in a quick flip they would be asking for £175 for each one. If it is now debt free as I've read it's immediately worth more than that. Isn't it?

Stephen Williams
33 Posted 05/03/2025 at 14:12:42
Michael,

In reality, as full details will never be in the public domain, we're all to varying degrees just guessing.

I suppose the way for the minorities to view this is it's the price of an emotional investment in something we all love to bits.

Stephen Williams
34 Posted 05/03/2025 at 17:26:29
Eric,

Debate over Value v Price and your feeling that the former was greater than the latter is really interesting.

As discussed, regrettably none of us have full information so it isn't possible to prove / disprove with absolute certainty. However, if Value was materially different (greater) than price then:

a) there would have been a steady stream of interested parties capable of completing a deal beating a path to Moshiri's door, and

b) Moshiri would have held out for a better deal.

In reality, there wasn't and he didn't (or maybe TFG deal was the best around?).

Therefore in this instance, I'm minded to conclude that Price did equate to Value.

Regarding TFG wishing to buy at the best price, that's not really news. There isn't a buyer of anything out there that doesn't want the best price, but that doesn't mean that the Price under-valued the asset.

I believe that TFG saw value not in the present, but in the future. But that future value could be realised only with significant further investment in the hundreds of millions. As that is what will be required to eliminate crippling debt, complete the stadium build and provide funds to rebuild the team. That will have effectively cost TFG another say, £400m on top of the c. £300m they've spent on acquisition. That would value the Club at £700+ which is probably about right. Again Price would equate to Value. Whilst the value of the Club would be increased, the value per share would be unchanged as that additional investment will be in either like for like shareholder debt or by a further issue of shares.

Without definitive evidence to the contrary, it would appear that in this instance Price equated to Value. This doesn't help the minorities but they should be looking at Moshiri instead of TFG. Buyers in November, however, should only be looking at themselves as it was clear that Value was nowhere near £3,400. I considered buying at that time but in purely investment terms couldn't justify much more than £250 a share and as that was clearly insufficient to persuade an existing minority to sell, I backed off.

Bill Hawker
35 Posted 05/03/2025 at 20:28:45
Michael #31.

Nice stereotype but actually Texans are some of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

As for your "do whatever the hell they want..." comment, that was the last administration. I'm sure you were paying close attention.

Just wanted to set the record straight.

Danny O'Neill
36 Posted 05/03/2025 at 22:36:48
I worked for three companies with their HQ in Texas. San Antonio and Austin. Very different cities, but I have an affectionate leaning towards the home of the Alamo, place to which I was weeks away from relocating to, 2-year visa issued.

Texans can be brash, but they often reminded me of Scousers and Scots. Fiercely proud and independent of view. I've travelled across a lot of the States, taking in 30 of them to date. I have a lot of friends out there in the Lone Star State, where you see more Texas flags than Stars and Stripes.

Just like I refer to Bavrians as Germany's Scots, Texans are similar. There were both after all at one point in history, an independent Kingdom and Republic respectively.

Eric Myles
37 Posted 06/03/2025 at 01:25:33
Stephen #34, I guess we may be looking at this value thing from a different perspective, you from mergers and acquisitions (?) me from bankruptcy (?).

For example you cite the amortised value of the playing squad, but we wouldn't sell any players for their book value would we, a receiver would be looking for the best price possible so their 'value' would be greater.

And of course, like buying a house, TFG are looking at the asking price and discounting it by the value of the work they're going to have to put into it to fix it up.

I just think, with no evidence to support it, that the shares are worth more than the new £175 each.

Like you I'd thought of buying 10 shares last November, but then I couldn't really justify spending the greater part of my daughter's yearly university fees on them. I reconsidered buying just one but then as I didn't really understand how the auction process worked I decided to wait until the next auction, but maybe now there won't be one.

Mike Gaynes
38 Posted 06/03/2025 at 02:16:41
Stephen, thank you for your posts on this subject. Most welcome. It's great to have people here with actual expertise.

That doesn't include Michael #31, who thinks that a very temporary CEO (shortly headed back to the construction industry) is obligated to get the new owners to talk to individual shareholders and has failed his job if they won't. Uh-huh. Well, I haven't seen Chong's portfolio, but a strongly doubt it includes telling the new owners what to do, so blaming Chong for their lack of response is simply ridiculous.

And for the record, the Friedkins CAN do whatever the hell they like within the bounds of the law and PL regulations, which do not require them to sit down with their smallest shareholders and explain themselves. That's what being an owner means.

Also, it's highly unlikely that the Friedkins are Trumpies. While Dan Friedkin is certainly a Republican, by far his largest political donations are to the Automotive Free International Trade PAC, a Republican group devoted to fighting tariffs. And tariffs are Trump's pet tactic to wreck the US economy, most specifically targeting the auto industry -- where Friedkin's family has made most of their money, and where Trump's tariffs have already caused automakers' stocks to plummet.

Bri Wilson
39 Posted 06/03/2025 at 08:46:28
Thanks for that party political broadcast, Mike. I have no idea what relevance that has to the minority shareholders being ignored.
Danny O'Neill
40 Posted 06/03/2025 at 09:15:44
I think it was started by an earlier reference to our owners being Texans Bri @39.

This tends to happen on TW now and then. I remember a particularly heated debate over Covid during the Pandemic. Michael and Lyndon let it flow, until someone brought in the Nazis and Hitler, then tore it down!!

Last one on Texan politics, I learned over my 7 years experience, that they are not too dissimilar to The traditional UK Conservative / Labour split. Broadly speaking the cities sway towards Democrat, the rural areas to Republican, with the state as a whole almost always going "Red".

I have no idea how shares work, but I doubt they would need to consult every single shareholder on everything. Maybe this is where the AGM should be resurrected and with the Advent of Zoom and Teams, no reason it can't be part in person, part virtual. It would give a much broader audience the opportunity to attend. I too feel that the FAB should be conveying this and such concerns to the club. Anyway, I've reached my limit of exploitation on shares and finances.

At least we've got a match to look forward to this coming weekend.

Bri Wilson
41 Posted 06/03/2025 at 16:09:06
Also, it's not so much the act of shareholder dilution but the extent of it. A 10x dilution would be challenged by shareholders in most corporate environments.

The fact TFG just wave away any requests for a conversation just adds a little more friction into the situation (irrespective of what they're legally entitled to do).

Ian Wilkins
42 Posted 07/03/2025 at 12:51:45
That’s a very fair point Bri @41, irrespective of size of stake they are shareholders, here long before the Friedkins.
A little courtesy, a brief conversation, wouldn’t go amiss.
Paul Wharton
43 Posted 17/03/2025 at 11:23:19
The minority shareholders are getting short changed by Mr Chong. I've held shares for 28 years and the benefits you could get included buying tickets home and away; now you have to have credits.

I've held season tickets since 1976 till 2009 when I fell out with Robert Elstone over season tickets and shareholders only getting one ticket for the Wembley showdown with Man Utd; I don't get season tickets since that date.

However, with the new ground on the horizon, I wanted to get a season ticket to sit with my grandchildren but I can't unless I pay £35 per year to an exclusive membership scheme — that's not going to happen as I paid £1,700-2,000 per share 28 years ago.

I protested this to the Shareholders Association committee, they held talks with Everton (Chong); he wouldn't budge relentlessly… so well done, Mr Chong. 3 generation of Evertonians could be lost.

As George Mahon said, the people of Liverpool support Everton. Chong: read up on the history of Everton — you may learn something.


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, 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 Talking Points submissions across the site.


How to get rid of these ads and support TW

© ToffeeWeb