A PERSONAL VIEW OF THE SHAREHOLDERS ASSOCIATION AGM
By
Mickey Blue Eyes

“It takes more than an infatuated youth to make a mutiny. It takes a discontented crew.”
ADMIRAL HOOD – Robert Bolt script in the 1984 movie “TheBounty.”

Monday evening, 2nd June 2003. Alex Young Suite, Goodison Park. Democracy took its course. Fair elections took place and many changes were made to officers and members of the executive committee. In my view and many others the changes were another required step in the rebuilding of our club, albeit not as important as the media would like to portray it. It is a potential beginning, nothing more. I hope the new office holders fulfil their promises.

Firstly, a sense of perspective. The Shareholders Association represents minority shareholders only. According to the local press this approximates a total of about 4% of the total shareholding. Me, I am the proud owner of precisely one share. I have no wish to buy any more than that. I am a fan, not a wheeler-dealer in the shares of Everton Football Club. I bought the share at the behest of a friend who was greatly concerned at the way the affairs of the Shareholders Association were being conducted, and he wanted my opinion. At first I thought he exaggerated the way things were. After attending some meetings and asking some questions through the chair I found myself in reluctant agreement. Like you, I have no wish to see disharmony of any kind at our club. I despise the kind of tiny-minority moaning mentality you can find at any football club and I give it short shrift. But this does not obviate genuine thought-through criticism. We all know we have had enough cause for that during the last five years or so. Each of us could provide a long list of valid concerns.

Secondly, the previous office holders are Evertonians at least as passionate about the club as you or I. Moreover, they played a large part in the yearned-for removal of Peter Johnson and Desmond Pitcher from our club. The latter action required a lot of professional know-how and dedicated action. This was provided unstintingly and without thought of personal reward. None of this should ever be forgotten. As fans we owe them an enormous debt. But nobody holds a patent on knowledge or dedication in football and, again, that includes you and I. Nobody is irreplaceable. Anybody who thinks they are is making a good case to prove otherwise.

The general question is whether it was right to present and vote for an alternative set of ideas and candidates. In my view, yes it was. It was time for the Shareholders Association to help our club take its next step forward. This could be best achieved by a set of new people with new ideas to build on previous admirable work. Upto the AGM there was little sign the incumbents were going to build on their previous efforts, odd exceptions apart such as a continuing if slow examination of a possible Fans Trust. To many of us the SA seemed too often content to settle for bucolia in the wake of the banishment of Peter Johnson and Desmond Pitcher. Meantime, genuine discontent simmered amongst the fans and younger shareholders, most of it justified. At times the incumbents appeared totally oblivious to this feeling. It was never better demonstrated than their obvious complete bafflement at the AGM that anybody else should stand against them, something which unfortunately mutated on their part into personal attacks and near-hysteria as electoral defeat loomed. Do not think I exaggerate. Some of their behaviour beggared belief.

And what was the cause of all this needless posturing? It was the action of a group of shareholders in issuing a reform manifesto the week before the meeting and proposing candidates on the night for various posts and on the executive committee. Instead of settling further for a bucolic existence the group organised itself, assembled support, presented its ideas and offered the people to carry them through. So far, so democratic. Nobody with any sense of fairness could argue sensibly against this principle. Moreover, item 8 on the AGM agenda was “Election of Officers.” The self-named Reform Group sent its manifesto to the SA chairman on 22nd May and he sent it out to shareholders on 24th May. Nobody else did the same.

On the night, the Group tried to distribute a leaflet describing their candidates. There was an immediate attempt made to stop members seeing the leaflet. As soon as this happened the Group stopped the distribution even though an open election would have welcomed such a step. It was a bad start and it got worse. But it has to be said it got worse because a few of the incumbents chose to make it so. Graceless is the most restrained word I am inclined to use. The only name calling and bad behaviour came from incumbents. As an example, when John Sinnott (whom I nominated) walked to take his place as new chairman he was told he wasn’t entitled to wear a badge from the EFC charity, Blueblood. John was a member of the previous executive committee and is a lifelong Evertonian. Other individuals were subject to the same kind of nonsense.

Nevertheless, some non-Reform Group candidates were voted onto the executive committee. Two Reform Group candidates weren’t. One member of the Reform Group nominated two incumbents for the new executive committee but they declined. So an offered opportunity for continuity was lost by their own choice. Officers who lost the election then walked out. In so doing, they missed two long-service presentations which they had themselves instigated. It was a self-pitying, tawdry and unnecessary gesture which demeaned the presentations. Ironically, those who left also missed a motion thanking them for their previous sterling efforts.

The Reform Group has promised action on the following:

· Increase Shareholders Association membership to 50% of all shareholders within one year.
· Seek to foster and develop the skills and resources of the membership of the Association for the benefit of the Company (Everton Football Club).
· Create the post of Shareholders Association Supporter Liaison Officer.
· Review the Shareholders Association aims and performance.
· Review the Shareholders Association constitution.

Amongst other things, concern has been voiced at expenditure on the Kings Dock stadium project, new stadium alternative proposals, Paul Gregg’s possible involvement with a separate project on the same site and whether the new project will benefit freely from consultancy services paid for by Everton Football Club, ticketing arrangements for some away matches, delayed processing of season tickets, merchandising techniques, conduct of Megastore business and linkage to our fans base.

Since the AGM there has naturally been some media reaction. It is not known who instigated it but it can be safely said it wasn’t sought by the Reform Group, though the argument has been readily engaged by them without resort to continuing invective employed by the electoral losers.

And therein lies the rub I think. Some of the incumbents (but not all) were sore and bad tempered losers, which is a pity. Nobody in the Reform Group wanted to see or hear the kind of useless tuppenny-ha’penny language which was bandied around. Once the dust, disappointment and euphoria has died down it is to be hoped that common sense will prevail and unity restored. It isn’t the end of the world to lose a Shareholders Association election, a fate the new lot might well suffer at the next AGM if they don’t deliver on their promises.

And that is the second rub. If the new officers and committee don’t deliver they will deserve to lose as much as the previous lot did. We should be as critical of the new as the old.

Your club needs you now more than ever. The renaissance is under way. Be a part of it. If you have the spare cash I urge you to buy at least one share and join the Shareholders Association and the debate. Make the effort. Make your voice heard. Don’t just moan – DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

Few members of the Shareholders Association have any illusions about the limits of their effectiveness. At the end of the day they are MINORITY shareholders. I have written two previous essays on ownership of our club and these show where the real power lies. But you are not completely powerless. The fans and minority shareholders played an enormous role in getting rid of Peter Johnson and Desmond Pitcher.

You really CAN make a difference. But only if you want to. In which case you don’t walk out of an Annual General Meeting after suffering an election defeat. (04/06/03)