But people shouldn’t be buying the pink tops and selling them on for a profit. It’s the same as ticket touting. They snap them all up and then anyone that wants one has to pay through the nose for it. They are ripping off their fellow supporters. It’s wrong, plain and simple.

I have to agree with Nick... this outburst from Ross is misguided at best and totally stupid at worst. I don?t quite understand the ticket-touting comparison ? is that really even relevant? Let?s just stick to the issue of selling on these pink shirts to (presumably) willing buyers... if there are any.

Either you accept the principle of eBay and the economic rules of supply and demand in a supposedly free society... or you don?t. But there?s is no legally binding agreement you eneter into that would prevent you from doing what you want with something you have paid good mney for.

Selling on something you have bought for a profit may not be something YOU would do... but does that mean everyone who does it is automatically wrong? I can?t see how anyone can claim that. Rather than people looking for reasons to slam the club, this is about someone looking to create a crime where there really is none. Well done, Nick, I say. I think Ross?s reaction is laughably ridiculous to be perfectly honest.

An aside with regard to ticket touting (from Wikipedia):

"It is controversial whether tickets are a good which can be privately resold. Some parties argue that the money paid to the organisers is actually paid for the service of attending the event, which a buyer cannot resell because the buyer does not have the service to sell. Other parties argue that tickets are paid for by consumers and should be transferable just like any other good. Typically private resale will contravene the original conditions of sale, but it?s legally questionable whether the original conditions of sale are even enforceable.

"In the United Kingdom resale of football/soccer tickets is illegal under section 166 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 unless the resale is authorized by the organizer of the match, such as what viagogo is doing through its partnerships with Chelsea FC, Manchester United, and Everton FC."

So ticket touting is illegal... but resale under controlled circumstances is condoned by Everton FC. Is selling pink shirts on eBay illegal? I don't think so....

Nick - are you so worked up about this because you yourself are one of those selling the Pink shirts on eBay?!

Ian Ross has said what he believes.. and to some degree, he does have a point - but also, as you point out - he is incorrect in a number of ways.

Why get so worked up about it though?

The thing that I find of most concern is that the club only state a ?contribution? will be made to the charity - we need to make sure that once this promotion is over - the final amount that is ?contributed? is made public.

Surely that is the most important matter in all of this.

Simple economics really, the demand is outstripping the supply. Surely if they released more shirts people wouldn’t have to buy them from ebay, no?

Steve Connor,

"If you wanna buy everton merchandise and sell it on fine..but don?t turn yourself into Che Guevara."

How do you manage to compare this trivial issue with the actions of a mass murderer?

Not really sure what the fuss is about here!

I can sort of understand the point Ian Ross is making but once the pink shirt has been originally purchased and the charitable donation made, then who?s arsed what happens to the shirt after that?

If someone wants to pay batty prices for goods they want then that?s the way it goes.

As for ticket touts; I love them. I never use the robbing bastards who sell original tickets on the net as they throw in all kinds of costs on top and you never know were you will be sitting.

Lets get things straight here.

This pink shirt was the brain child of Ian Ross following the successful treatment received by a member of Everton's staff following diagnosis of breast cancer. As a way of saying thank you to the support group involved, Everton released the shirt with a donation going to the charity concerned.

As such Nick?s article and Michael?s subsequent support of it is fucking shocking. If someone walks into a charity shop, grabs himself a bargain and then goes on makes a profit on it for himself some would call him Entrepreneurial. He?s not ? he?s a cunt of the highest order. If the same cunt then sells the pink shirt on ebay and makes a profit, he and his customer are both as bad as each as they (presumably) are aware of its beginnings.

Don?t give me that shite about willing buyer and seller. There is no grey area here ? This if fucking wrong and anyone who can?t see is as bad as those low-lifes involved.

People who profit off the back of charity are not people I want to share a football club with.

"People who profit off the back of charity are not people I want to share a football club with."

Here, Here.

Boycott the Ebay Pink shirts, they're probably fakes too.

I think it becomes a problem when the people buying these are denying those others who genuinely want one and would prefer to buy it from the club, knowing that they are contributing to a very worthy cause from the club they love. And Michael, you really are on a downer with our club at the moment!!!!
At least no one has blamed Moyes, Hibbert or Neville for it yet.

Surely Kenrick, I know you hate this current "regime" (as you call it), but be serious, selling "Charity" shirts for a profit smacks of desperation. It is not whether the club looses or not, but this is not something that should be condoned. Everton is the only club with such a shirt and the club needs to be supported not criticised at every chance.

Gareth, I agree. I think your trying to put morals and values to this.

If I were to sell my blue shirt on ebay would that make me and the people who would want to bid and buy it a bunch of cunts? Or does that tag only apply when the price exceeds the original rrp?

Who said profit was a dirty word in Britain...

Ray, dont compare oranges and apples. The regular shirts are sold for a profit and are commercial property.

I agree that there is no law in the book that prevents people from "profiting" from non-profit causes. Also surely Ian Ross knows that the club has not lost any money by someone selling these shirts online. It is simply an ethical issue that Ian is correctly poiniting out. Is it illegal? NO. Is it wrong? Hell yes!!!

Ray Burn - please tell me you can see the difference here.

The guy paid for the shirt, and the fee he paid was donated to the charity. So why should it matter if he then sells it on. Whether he keeps it or sells it on doesn’t make any difference to the charity does it? The charity got the donation it was intended to receive.

The new recipient will still presumably wear the shirt and promote the charity.

Just been on e-bay, looks like the £1million bid is back.
I do not like the "percentage going to charity" so how about E-Bay or paypal asking for any profit to be sent to the relevant charity or the above speech marked statement has to be omitted.

Spot on Billy Dean! The arguments against selling the shirts for a profit are so ridiculous that I just had to post a reply. Once the shirt is purchased, the monies go to charity and the shirt becomes personal property of the consumer. He or she may do whatever they would like with the shirt. If someone out there is willing to pay more than the shirt sold for originally, then it is their choice. I say kudos to the entrepreneurs!!

I would guess from all this fuss the half-a-dozen perpetrators would be struggling to sell their wares... and very unlikely to get top dollar for such immoral acts. After all, as Gareth demonstrates, Evertonians are such fine, upstanding folk built of firm moral fibre and would not stoop to such despicable levels... right?

Wowoa!!! Couldn?t be more wrong! Go over to ebay and check out the completed sales: 40 sold at the moment! And the price range is an astounding £52 to £102!!! And there are another 20+ still to go... What does this tell you?

It tells me the club totally misunderstood what it created. Or worse, that it deliberatly limited the print run ? why would you do that if there is a charitable contribution on each one ? look at the lost potential alone.

I?m sorry but the caterwalling from Ross on this is utterly pathetic and totally demeans the fine memorial to the original support group. The question to him has to be: "Why was a limited edition?" It is demand alone that has created the eBay market he so despises... Demand created by his (or the club?s) decision to limit the production run.

And I'm trying hard here not to even mention the incredible original retail price... £44.99. Tell me that all the profit is going to cancer research... somehow I doubt it!

We can solve this issue immediately

When demand exceeds supply you produce more.

EFC must, tomorrow, state that sufficent shirts to satisfy demand are to be produced.

By being ambiguous with the production run then the moral arguments are satisfied.

"I?m sorry but the caterwalling from Ross on this is utterly pathetic and totally demeans the fine memorial to the original support group. The questoion to him has to be: "Why was a limited edition?" It is demand alone that has created the eBay market he so despises... Demand created by his (or the club?s) decision to limit the production run. "

It?s not his decision. It?s not the club's decision. It?s the Premier League?s decision.



Because of the limits of the number of kits per team (FA rules), Everton had to fight for special permission to release the pink kit last season. One of the conditions was that it was limited edition.

But of course, it?s SO much more fun to jump on the club's back without waiting for the facts.

Michael Kenrick: you?re argument is confused at best. By your reference to us living in a free society and thus accepting free trade, plus your point that touting is different because it is, in fact, illegal, you seem to be implying that it cannot be immoral to sell or resell anything provided it is illegal, because we live in a free society. Surely you don?t believe that?

While reselling pink shirts is a couple of degrees below dealing drugs to kids in terms of seriousness, it?s still pretty sketchy. The reason is, for me, it?s profiteering off the back of a charity ? one of the reasons people want the shirt is that it shows support for cancer awareness. They are making money of the back of a charity?s name without their permission.

It isn?t illegal, but neither is never buying your round, and both make you a bit of a cunt, in my opinion.

I don?t think anyone understands why a potential big seller such as this is limited edition; however, I think this is deviating somewhat from the original point.

Ian Ross is rightly slagging the scumbags off who are selling these to make a profit and in my book the people who are buying them are just as bad. Encouraging these morally bankrupt clowns by buying off them make them just as culpable. It makes me sick.

Entwistle, Kenrick, Byrne, Burn, Dean & Fedkiz - your stance is utterly abhorrent.

Simon Skinner: "One of the conditions was that it was a limited edition." ? In which case, a sensible response from Ross, instead of being the moral Almighty and calling members of the Evertonian Family by all sorts of libelous names, would have been to say, "It?s unfortunate that we can?t satisfy the demand for this shirt, and thereby increase contributions to the charity that it symbolises. I understand they are selling for a substantial mark-up on e-bay, which I personally think is a pity, but it reflects how popular they are and how mistaken the Premier League rules are when it comes to something like this."

Personally I was shocked when Ball, Wilson, Young sold their medals... but I guess that?s just me. I thought it was a pity but I understood why they did it. I didn?t need to take the moral high ground and make them out to be social pariahs. But we are not talking about medals or tickets or rounds of drinks... we are talking about shirts... pink shirts.

How on earth selling on a pink shirt can be proclaimed immoral when it was in the first place sold as a commercial item for an extortionate price well beyond its cost of manufacture or intrinsic worth... the whole moralistic response simply beggars belief! Worst of all, it unnecessarily creates a bad atmosphere for the fans and awful image for the club.

Humphreys: rather than joining in the name-calling, why not try to explain for our benefit what is so abhorrent about selling on a pink shirt? You say they are profiting off charity, but they were the ones who made the charitable contribution (albeit indirectly) by buying the shirt! They are making the profit on the sale of a commercial item that is limited in supply, which (by some basic rule of capitalism) increases it's perceived value. You can't call that wrong just because the shirt is pink, FFS!

Kenrick, well put, agree with you totally.

What I find confusing is why EFC didn’t release it as a ’training top’? Surely they would have been able to produce as many as they wanted then?

Michael: you want to turn this into an argument of "are you for or against capitalism?", as if a believe in a free market must naturally result in support of all results. This isn?t true; ambulance chasing lawyers are scum, accountants who hide money from tax in a barely legal way are scum, along with many others.

However, those people at least provide a service. What service exactly do the shirt resellers provide? You can?t apply a pro-captalist argument unless a service is being provided. You may not want to call them social pariahs, but they are by definition parasites.

Medals are totally different by the way - they are putting something into the market that wouldn?t be there otherwise, so let?s not dirty the names of Ball, Wilson or Young.

On top of that, they are profiting off the name of the charity. As I said, a lot of people would buy the shirt to show support of breast cancer awareness. The fact that some level of payment has been made at some stage is not relevent - the charity would have gotton the money anyway no matter what the route of sale.

Say, for example, I bought 1000 poppies for a 5p each and resold them for 10p each, keeping the profits for myself. That?s fine too, presumably? I mean, the charity got some money, I made a profit - everybody is a winner, right? Free market capitalism at it?s finest.

Anybody want to defend that?

Having just read Nick?s original posting, I have to say that I do not understand ? apart from the emotional outbursts from those who are presumably in the Ian Ross camp ? exactly what the fuss is about.

To me, there are two issues here. The first is the ?right? of Ian Ross to use official communication channels to attack others over an issue he sees as immoral. The second are the comments made by Nick and Michael to try and put a realistic (and factual) context around what has occurred.

Not one person who has posted a response on this issue has delivered a rational explanation as to why Ian Ross is justified in taking the long handle to whomever it was that sold the pink shirt UNDER the EFC letterhead (which is at the core of Nick?s comments). Ross? actions and the means he has used to mobilise them are both hypocritical and illegal. By any performance effectiveness measure, the performance of Ian Ross, the communications ?guru? who failed to communicate with club supporters and did not provide not one iota of substantial information ? as was his duty and, it could be argued quite rationally, his moral obligation - over the past summer in circumstances which saw our supporters crying out for some information in a period that saw our club almost implode, has been appalling. Yet, when someone does something HE regards as ?immoral? he throws the toys out of the pram and uses OFFICIAL channels to attack those who have offended HIS sensibilities.

Sure, he is entitled to take umbrage at someone whom he saw as crossing the boundaries of decency (as have Gareth Humphreys and Simon Skinner and others of us), but he is not (I repeat, not) entitled to drag the club (through use of official communication channels) into his emotional outbursts. And this is not an emotional statement ? it is fact and is enshrined in the club?s articles of association and will, no doubt, be a subject of comment in the club?s next Governance Audit Report. I know if I was conducting this governance audit I would giving his outburst significant airplay and making appropriate recommendations regarding Mr Ross? future. Think of the possible ramifications for the club if any club official or employee could, at any time, attack people who upset them and attacked them in writing using official club channels. God help us if someone did something else that offended Mr Ross? sensibilities and then saw themselves subjected to a juicy write-up on official club letterhead and/or the club website. You could almost imagine the juicy damages settlement the club would have to pay the victim of his attack as well.

And an analysis of all of the attacks on Nick and Michael K and any others who have supported them, show them clearly loaded with bile and emotion, but little, if any, fact. The attackers have taken the moral high ground and left reason entirely out of the equation. And. As with anything else, you are entitled to an opinion but this does not automatically accord your opinion the status of ?sacredness? that people like Gareth Humphreys have awarded themselves.

Gareth in his first attack said ?As such Nick?s article and Michael?s subsequent support of it is fucking shocking. If someone walks into a charity shop, grabs himself a bargain and then goes on makes a profit on it for himself some would call him Entrepreneurial. He?s not ? he?s a cunt of the highest order.?

Whilst I understand the basic tenet of your comments here Gareth and agree with it, the only other rational aspects I garnered from this post Gareth is that you are a highly emotional individual with a limited vocabulary and a poorly developed means of expressing opinions. I also find your use of filthy language to make a point both appalling and spineless ? in effect, your language in this instance is my pink shirt. Do you think I could use official club channels to slag you off over this one?

In your second post you comments to the effect that ?Ian Ross is rightly slagging the scumbags off who are selling these to make a profit and in my book the people who are buying them are just as bad. Encouraging these morally bankrupt clowns by buying off them make them just as culpable.? leave me wondering exactly what has happened in your life to take such exception to the points made by Nick and Michael.
I think your final words probably sum it all up ? for you it?s personal and ?It makes me sick.? so that when you say ??Ian Ross is rightly slagging off the scumbags..? you mean to say that ?..in my opinion, Ian Ross is rightly slagging off those who are in my opinion, scumbags..?

The selling off of memorabilia such as in this case (or even match tickets) does exactly make me want to rush out and hug the perpetrators either, but that does NOT render as invalid the comments made by Nick and Michael simply because you find the original situation offensive.

Simon Skinner?s comments to Michael Kenrick to the effect that ?you?re argument is confused at best. By your reference to us living in a free society and thus accepting free trade, plus your point that touting is different because it is, in fact, illegal, you seem to be implying that it cannot be immoral to sell or resell anything provided it is illegal, because we live in a free society. Surely you don?t believe that?? leave me wondering what planet you live on, Simon. Michael?s comments are not confused at all, he is correct when he says ?Free trade? is a fact and, whilst it is also a fact that many people, including me (and presumably you and Gareth), find the boundaries that are being pushed, and the apparent lack of morality being paraded, daily around the globe in the name of free trade abhorrent, attacking others who are simply trying to explain the realities of a free trade environment is not going to change a thing.

In my opinion, Michael has not tried to justify any of the things you accuse him of, he is just trying to put this whole issue in context and deal with the facts. There are things in this world that are illegal and there are things in this world that are, in most people?s opinions, immoral and this is one of those cases. And as much as I dislike touts and opportunistic profiteers, they are a fact of life and if we want to disempower them or get them off our streets, then it is these people we should be focusing our attacks on. Attacking those who are simply pointing out the facts of life as they stand is not going to achieve anything beyond presenting an opportunity for you (and Gareth) to have a catharsis.

But if you are convinced that the actions taken on e-Bay over this issue are illegal or immoral to the point that they should be prosecuted, be my guest and take action against the seller, the buyer and, perhaps, even e-Bay itself.

I don’t understand; we are a 12 games into the season and Everton have yet to wear their new pink away strip for even a single game!

Laurie: To try to answer your questions briefly:

(1) The pink shirt is an Everton product, and Ross’s job is Everton’s spokesman. Therefore Ross should respond, if he thinks it is appropriate, under the EFC letterhead.

(2) Ross’s track record as Everton’s spokesman is not relevant at all to this issue. No matter how dumb he’s been in the past, that should not effect whether or not he responds here. Two wrongs etc.

(3) You ask if you could use club channels to critisise Gareth’s language - clearly not, as Gareth’s language is not an Everton issue, while the pink shirts are.

(4) "attacking others who are simply trying to explain the realities of a free trade environment is not going to change a thing. " - you are making the same argument that Michael was hinting at - that the fact that free trade is a reality means we cannot be offended at the people who carry out some of the less preferable results. We can be; the existance of free trade is not a defence for anybody’s character.

Michael is hinting (for example, by saying that since the pink shirt was manufactured for pennies and sold for 44.99, taking moral offence at somebody else making a profit of it "beggers belief) that under a free market system you cannot take a moral stand against anybody who legally makes a profit. I strongly disagree (and I think you do too).

(5) I find the shirt selling slightly more offensive than touting - both are making a profit while providing no service to society whatsoever. The only difference is these people are to some extent doing so off the name of a charity, which is slightly worse.

(6) Nobody has said the act is illegal. I’m not exactly sure how this could be "immoral to the point that they should be prosecuted".

(7) You have however accused Ian Ross of an illegal act, which is not true, and are therefore guilty of libel and I find you morally abhorrant.

(8) Calm down, 7 was a joke.

"Simon, Michael Kenrick,Robert Mugabe. Isn?t that a classic one bullet dilemma?"

So I assume that you are on the side of those who provide no benefit to society?

Brilliantly subtle, I have to say.

I looked on ebay immediately after seeing Ian Ross?s rant on the offical site...found this on ebay:

PINK EVERTON SHIRT 08/09

THIS TOP HAS BEEN WORN ONCE FOR 10 MINUTES FOR A PHOTO AT A BREAST CANCER CAMPAIGN IN LIVERPOOL. THE FULL 100% OF THE SALE WILL GO TO THE BREAST CANCER CAMPAIGN

I WILL SEND WINNING BIDDER RECEIPT OF DONATION FROM CHARITY AS PROOF

(So it looks like Charity is the main winner in this ebay sale initiative. Indeed much more benefical for the breast cancer charity than the terms offerred by Club.)

Ian Ross seems to be somewhat lacking in tact... he ain?t a pinky himself is he??

No mate, I?m on your side ie any excuse to jump on the club and some cretin will do it. This sort of thing, distasteful as it is, is always going to happen, but you can?t slag the club?s official spokesman for taking a stand against it can you! What?s he supposed to say? Unless you just want to bash him over Kirkby...
Anyway, answer the question ? who eats lead?

Ahhh, now I understand you post. I thought you were suggesting three names for the bullet, inclduing mine.

Who gets shot? Meh, shoot me anyway.

Simon, I agree with you! Its a stand that the club has issued and whether these people have sinned is immaterial to the argument. The fact is that the club has organized a charity sale and we should be supporting the club for the noble work.

In fact I can't believe the editor of a leading Everton fan club has an issue with the clubs statement!!!

I am offended by this. It isn?t as if we are one of the soft teams at the top of the league with a Norwegian, Sri Lankan support. I?m sure some of us know Everton girls with these shirts and who can hazard a guess at the reason for their selling. Stupid comments, Ross should get on with more important stuff rather than offending some Everton fans. It isn?t as if it is at a loss to the club.

If EFC are that concerned then the solution is simple. No more than 2 shirts can be sold to any single individual.

I have no time for touts - of either the ticket or shirt variety, but for EFC to accept serious cash for bulk purchases and then complain that the shirts are being resold for profit on ebay is hypocritical in the extreme.

Nil Satis

Ross is a disgrace I bet the % mark-up the club makes on these shirts is way in excess of most of the ebay items. Now if ALL profits were going to the charity then it might be a different story but there not, hypocrite, simple as! Also, if we were serious about supporting this charity why don’t we produce other non-limited edition items with profits going to the cause and/or donate seperately out of goodwill without actually manufacturing anything, especially profits. The whole thing stinks!

Unfortunately, e-bay is responsible for the total lack of anybody getting any chance of getting a concert ticket. The people who defend e-bay are up there with the bankers I am afraid.

Well, I wasn?t expecting such a furore on my post!
I was of course expecting people to disagree with me, and that is fine, though this was a post more on the way media is used to form our opinions. I in no way placed an argument forth on what I think of these ebay resellers and there is no need for me to do so, I was critising a blanket oppinion put forth by Ross that puts anyone else with a differing view to his vitriolic retoric as not ?decent? ?right thinking? and not an ?Everton supporter?. A rather blunt attempt of cognitive dissonance for all you psychology fans out there...

The people who are against the reselling of these shirts do seem to come from the ?...End of? brigade. Reactionary with a hard and fast line on what on the surface can come over as an issue to disagree with, not once taking a step back and having a considered response, even if it was to have the same end result. I don?t know, Daily Mail readers perhaps. And anyone who disagrees with them is immediately shunned.
All comes down again to the individual?s right and ability for free thought and action. Anyone seen The Wave? German film, go see it...

Oh, and ticket touting is illegal on the street. Agencies online are legal, so long as they notify the buyer of the mark up and face value.

"The people who defend e-bay are up there with the bankers I am afraid"

LOL

You make an excellent point Ron, everything i?ve read about the ?Credit Crunch? indicates it came about because of irresponsible bankers selling complicated derivatives, a loss of confidence in inter-bank lending caused by the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market and the real culprits in all of this...the ebay ticket sellers who priced you out of some Girls Aloud concert, or whatever...the bastards!

Immorality...

These shirts are probably made in a sweatshop in Indonesia for fucks sake! Or are these modern day slaves too far detached to be considered?

Nick

Thanks for dismissing my response as an "End Of" argument. Clearly, your detailed response, including saying that it wasn’t a detailed response and labelling me as a probable Daily Mail reader was of a higher form of argument.

However, I’ll briefly respond to your points directly:
(1) You argue £44.99 is inflated, but rely on pro-capitalist arguments of opem market values and willing buyers/sellers later on.

(2) The argument that the Charity has made their cash doesn’t make reselling ok; again, say I bought £44.99 worth of poppies and sold them for a total of £100 on 11 November to people who wouldn’t otherwise have bought poppies, and I pocketed the difference. Is that OK?

(3) It’s only libel if a court says so, and a lot of people who would say "fair comment".

(4) Yes, it’s a strongly worded article. It’s deliberately emotive. Why? Well, because there’s nothing legally Everton can do about it. So their choice is either do nothing, release something saying that "EFC are marginally annoyed and very slightly offended at the grey area actions of some Evertonians who we do not wish to say anything bad about" (which is a subset of do nothing) or release an article shaming the people hoping they would stop.

I’d also repeat that Ross’s track record is not relevent to this case.
(5) Just because it is a willing contract doesn’t make it right. I’m sure you’d agree with that - having made an argument that we shouldn’t blindly follow what we are told, you surely wouldn’t rely on a legal/illegal distinction to influence your morality.

Now, if that argument is me blindly following what I’ve been told, then I guess I’m a sheep.

Oh, and accusing people of "End of" arguments is the new "end of" argument, apparently.

Michael Kenrick..........
(1)The fact that these people are part of the "Everton Family" makes me think is it somewhere I want to frequent anymore - as I said before people who profit from charity are not people I want to share a football club with.
(2) How on earth can you faintly compare these people and their "enterprise" with what Ball/Wilson/Young amongst others did with their medals - are you that stupid or just merely struggling to justify your pathetic argument ?
(3) Finally in answer to your question about what is so abhorrent about people profiting off the back of a cancer charity, I suggest you read the question back to yourself and go and sit in a dark room and ponder it. If you come out and still think it?s ok turn around and go back in.

Laurie Cooper..........

Well first of all let me apologise for using such vulgar language in my previous posts and secondly let me thank you for taking the time to enlighten us mere mortals on the articles of association and governance audits. Whilst I?m at it I would also like to pass on my sincere gratitude for the psychoanalysis I have received from you as now that problem area of my appalling and spineless life has been boxed off I can get on with improving my obviously limited vocabulary.

Hang on a minute ? who do you think you are? I could at this point get into a dick waving (sorry) competition but I won?t. Instead I?ll get back to the point at hand.

That point is, in Nick Entwistle?s belief, these entrepreneurs (aka cunts - whoops there I go again) have been hard done to by Ian Ross who has basically called them all the bastards under the sun.

My view is that these people are utter scum and I shall never deviate from that opinion. On top of that the people who buy off them are scum as they are encouraging such reprehensible behavior. I?ll even go as far as to say that the people who don?t view it in a very dim light also need to check their moral compass. This last category is where the Author and Michael Kenrick amongst other sit. It is akin to Racism in that it will never be removed whilst people sit idly on their hands and look the other way. If you?re not part of the solution you?re part of the problem

I hope this clarifies my view point Laurie. If you do respond I suggest when you word it try not to do so in such a condescending manner as basically you look like a ? well a cunt really. A rather smug self satisfied one at that.

Gareth,

(1) As I have tried to suggest, I think your judgmental condemnation of fellow Evertonians (along with that of Ross) is misguided and foolish.

(2) I was offering the medal sales as an example of something I reacted negatively too but did not condemn the perpetrators for because I respected their decision: an example I was vainly suggesting you might follow in this case.

(3) Profiting on the back of charity? The connection is tenuous to say the least. The (small) charitable contribution has been paid through the club via the purchase of the shirt. Any profit is a reflection of the perceived value of the commercial product ? a pink shirt ? which has been bought for a substantial sum (far more than the charitable contribution), and which the purchaser is free to sell on if they wish.

I understand it?s going to be hard for you to come down from the high moral ground and accept that your reaction is grossly disproportionate in this case. There are surely far more clear cut injustices you could rail against. As someone suggested, such an outburst of moral outrage and righteous indignance would do any Daily Mail reader proud.

ps: As you know, I do not tolerate use of this website for calling people names. Please stop calling people cunts or your posts will be removed. Your suggestion that taking a position which differs diametrically from your own is "akin to Racism" is utterly abhorrent to me and finally crosses the line.

Simon,

I didn?t dismiss your response with it being an ?End of? statement, mearly noted that the people against the ebay sellers were of this brigade as I called them.
Also I stated that the responses were reactionary and could be more considered (these are two differing forms of approaching a debate, one closes off discussion (end of), the other welcomes it, exploring all perspectives regardless of personal oppinion and does not rely on a black or white conclusion). I did not say they were not detailed.

And yet again you over look the fact that this was not a post about the right and wrongs of selling on ebay, more the manipulating of public oppinion.
I have not put forth an oppinion on this, though in the meantime I get to be called a cunt by some people.

Other than that, your poppy argment falls flat because buying from poppy sellers they are directly working for the Haig Fund, if you were to rattle your tin and sell your batch people would be thinking you were of the Haig Fund also.
If you offered full disclosure on your opperation to the public, then good luck to you, I just dont think you?d get the buisness. Buying the poppys would have to be between two willing individuals and would that happen?
If you didnt disclose, that is misplacement of trust, almost fraud.
Now how does that apply to ebay? People know the deal with them.

Oh and my first point of inflated prices... note the irony please. I might be all for free market, doesn?t mean I can?t think something is too expensive.

Hope this helps
(thats condescension, another form of irony)

Michael


(1) The fact that these people are fellow Evertonians really does not sit comfortably with me atall. I feel a poll amongst blues would show at least 80% support for total condemnation of these poeple. Perhpas you could use your forum to put it to the test ?
(2) When you talk about Alan Ball just have a little think about the Alan Ball memorial cup and remember where the proceeds of this charity event went.
(3) I have no idea how you can say the link is tenuous with a straight face. They are buying a charity shirt as they know they can sell it and make a quick buck. Yes the charity are getting there money and you are obviously of the opinion that it is therefore ok. It isn’t. Try pitching this one on dragon’s den and see the response you would get.

Cheers Michael, now people think I wrote cunt when I used ’C’ to represent the word.

I presume kids read this site and as such the word should be banned, maybe we could have a forum ruling on this... ooops, just got all Daily Mail reader like! End of!

Perhaps the club and the makers should have realised after the first sale that demand was pretty high and that it would have been logical to make a larger number rather than making them a limited edition. Therefore making them a useless commodity to the spineless jellyfish that are touts. So although I get his point this situation was avoidable.
1 in 3 are affected by cancer, KARMA.

Also to anyone who feels strongly enough I suggest you go on Tout- bay, sorry E-bay and bid 1 million pounds on each item.

Erm, Alan, are you saying that because we disagree with Ross we will contract cancer due to Karma?
I may reavaluate my stance on the word cunt...

Erm, Alan, are you saying that because we disagree with Ross we will contract cancer due to Karma?

No, Nick, I'm not. I'm merely stating the fact that at some point in your life you will be affected by cancer and that is a fact. I have already been personally, and so my opinion is that I find it immoral but, as I stated, a completely avoidable situation.

Anyway haven't you a Daily Mail to read?

I think everyone who has posted on here will have been affected by it, as I have indirectly.
It was mentioned earlier that FA rules would only allow a limited release of the shirts, so other than cutting through FA red tape it wasnt avoidable.
Get your point though.

Nick, sorry about that... To me, the words are the tools of communication and I see no point in banning them or being too coy about using them to convey the intended message. Banning words is a bit like banning books (I don’t think they do that anymore, do they?).

I guess you could say our approach is more The Guardian... less the Daily Mail!

Talking of the Daily Mail, Gareth: Are we getting an apology from you for shamelessly playing the racist card on this thread? That really was despicable.

The whole pink shirt thing always stank of the lowest common denominator to me, and I completely agree with Nick. The Everton PR machine constantly bleats about ’commercial sensitivity’, a phrase that in any other time would equate to "shut the fuck up and just watch the match". The bitter irony is that outbusrts like Ian Ross’s are likely to do more damage to the delicate club/ fans balance. Telling your ’customers’- and in no uncertain terms- that they are morally out of line for doing what THEY want with THEIR stuff is patronising, insulting and naive in the extreme. Duncan Bannatyne would turf you onto the street for a marketing fuck-up like that.

With this they just show how desperate and out of touch they are with the modern consumer’s situation. Selling stuff on ebay is par for the course thesedays, and if you get hold of something that’s been wrapped up in the usual ’limited edition’ marketing hype that accompanied the pink shirt then of course you’re gonna flog it for a profit if you get the chance and need the money. Like Nick said, the charity aren’t losing out here. It might even be suggested that the continued circulation of and interest in the pink shirt offers benefits to the charity in terms of raised awareness, which can’t be underestimated

The club seem to be quick to use the credit crunch as an excuse to partially justify their incompetence. What they don’t seem to realise is that the credit crunch works both ways. Who the hell is Ian Ross to so publicly assume that people are flogging pink shirts on ebay for "greedy" purposes"? Could it be that these "self-serving and callous individuals" are feeling the pinch as much as the global business with a multi-million pound turnover they loyally support come what may? The club know that the money these ’rogue’ fans make selling the shirts will trickle back to them at some point- and if they’d not fucked up so royally in the pre-season and actually done what they needed to do to build on last season then this would have probably been sooner rather than later.

For Ian Ross to lambast the fans like this is extremely bad form, and something that beyond the issue itself I feel very disappointed about. I remember him from his journalism days, where his writing and analysis were sharp, and his obvious blue credentials a boost in a media that is often quite negative and patronising about Everton. With PR like this- and it’s hardly an isolated case- is it any wonder this is the case?


Odd game today. We need to get the left side sorted out smartish.

Ahhhhhhhh but Michael, you just censored the letter C.
Totally contradictory of you, I’m telling Bert and Ernie.

Michael, I think you’ve already replied to that post or was my comment that despicable that you couldn’t bring yourself to answer it first time around.

I am saying that igoring problems doesn’t make them go away. Please don’t try and twist my words to support your argument.

Roman Fedkiv
What a load of boillocks.

My sister who has cancer wanted to buy a shirt , she was to late as the shirts had all been sold, bought by pricks who only want to make a profit.
She does not have the kind of cash that these shirts sell for on the bay and why should she have to pay that much anyway.
If you don’t want a shirt to wear DON’T buy one

The club are selling these shirts for £44.99 and 10% goes to the charity concerned.

That’s £4.45

Where does the rest of the money go?

Why doesn’t the club sell as many shirts as Everton fans want. The club will profit, charity will profit and I will be able to buy one for my wife!! Why do people make life so difficult for themselves.?

If there is such a demand for the shirts, why didn't they make many more available? I think Mr Ross is disingenuous at best.

Why, in the summer and as a way of getting around the Premier League ruling, didn?t the club release the pink shirts as the Everton Ladies away or third kit?? That way they could have released as many as they wanted, thus making more money for the charity and keeping the shirts off e-bay. As far as I?m concerned the club has only got itself to blame for this.

It's probable that many posters on here who praise those who bought in bulk for the profiteering venture of selling them on ebay are unemployed dole cheats and any chance to make a fast buck like should not be sniffed at. Unfortunately those with the genuine want for one of these shirts i.e. have a wife, girlfriend or daughter who want a shirt have to miss out or pay the piss-taking prices dictated by the ebay bidding process. It's this shit that gives decent scousers a bad name.

Ian Ross, ’Head of Communications’ at Everton has launched a withering broadside at fans selling limited edition pink shirts on eBay, branding them "greedy, self-serving and callous individuals who will be rightly condemned by every decent, right-thinking supporter of Everton Football Club."

The sale of these shirts on Ebay is shocking, but the statements can be contexturalised on many levels.

A bit like the Everton Board then in moving us out of Liverpool!

Well said, Reg.

Whilst Ian Ross has a morally valid point about a charity product, he is using it as a way of covering up for the commercial naivety shown yet again by our Club.

So the FA (quite rightly in my opinion ) prevent more than 3 kits a season. They could go further and make clubs wear them for 2 seasons as well in my opinion, but anyway I?m deviating.

As others have rightly said why not release it as a Ladies kit? After all, they are the ones wearing these shirts. Or release it as a Training top.
Or have the luminous one as a second kit and a Pink as a Third kit? Then they could have produced as many as required, donated a fiver each time to charity, made some cash and kept all the female Evertonians happy.

They just don?t see the opportunity. Then, when others inevitably do, we get this ill-considered broadside aimed at Evertonians. Talk about washing dirty laundry in public and looking silly.

It?s your own stoopid fault again, EFC.

Very sad really.

Ross has created the problem: Supply and demand ? he created the limited supply when there is a massive demand. The last run of pink shirts created the same problems.

Talk about short sighted. Put the Pink shirts on permanent sale and the club and charity benefit. Meanwhile, over in Kirkby, there is some serious business going on....

Just for one I find myself in some agreement with Mr. Ross. Despite of the meagre contribution the club make to charity I cannot condone the rampant profiteering of people selling the shirts on at extortionate prices. Nick you seem to be supporting unfettered capitalism as a benign force for good. That must be quite irritating if you are about to lose your house, job as a result of a global economic crisis as a result of unregulated capitalism.

A solution would be for the club to make a much larger % contribution and sell them for a longer period of time. It might do the clubs image a much needed boost, the charity would get more money and everyone would be happier.