Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In Sign Up
Text:  A  A  A

Shame on You Everton FC

By Christine Foster :  02/04/2008 :  Comments (114) :
I love my club. We have always tried to play the game the right way, you know, we believe that even if we lost and played well, we could take home the thought that the team had played in the right spirit. The right approach for the School of Science.

The current spat between the club and KEIOC is disgraceful. That my club should stand up and bully those passionate supporters who have given a lifetime of support to them because they disagree with the board on its proposed move to Kirkby is shameful.

Free speech is a right that we all have, often we disagree with what is said but we are allowed to stand and make our point for what it is worth. That is what generations of our people have lived and died for, no less. To claim defamation against a group of supporters for demanding to be heard is a reflection not on the integrity of the supporters but on the club itself. The club have had countless opportunities to enter into the debate, satisfy its critics or justify its proposals. It has chosen not to, it has ignored requests for clarification on costs, alternatives, or even on ongoing progress discussion.

The truth sometimes hurts, and its hurting Everton FC. Perhaps the unease with the way the whole process has been conducted, the site itself and the opposition to the proposal (stronger than they expected??) Has it now stung the club into retaliation because it?s on the back foot? Of course it has.

It?s a classic move, if you can?t fight the idea or the facts because you would lose, gag the voice of opposition, threaten them personally. Attack the person not the idea. Isn?t that what the club have just done?

The Board of Directors are responsible for running the clubs affairs in an honest and open manner. The attempt to stifle the voice of dissent is beneath them. If they want to clear the issues once and for all then open it up to all parties publicly, because in taking the action they have it has reinforced the belief of many with respect to the clubs arrogance in its treatment of those who would ask for answers.

Shame on you Everton FC and the spineless who would stifle free speech and consultation The Peoples Club? Who are you kidding? You have shamed that title for ever more.

Reader Comments

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


Barry Scott
1   Posted 02/04/2008 at 14:55:46

Report abuse

It’s a good thing in my opinion, it’s only served to show KEIOC in a favourable light.]

The KEIOC campaign would not have received the press coverage they have had today if the club hadn’t have made the threat.
Gavin Ramejkis
2   Posted 02/04/2008 at 15:03:10

Report abuse

The desperation of KW is as shocking as his retention of his position at Everton FC, he is out of his depth and not even very good at the "wide boy" he obviously sees when he looks at his solid platinum and diamond crusted mirrors in his large mansion.

KW OUT OUT OUT OUT OUT, money grabbing, scheming, self serving bastard - now that’s free speech
Neil Adderley
3   Posted 02/04/2008 at 15:02:18

Report abuse

Fantatsic article Christine - I agree that it is a dark day when the custodians of OUR club threaten its own supporters with legal action.

Although as Barry points out - as own goals go, this was whopper of dare I say it, Sandy Brown proportions.
Ray Burns
4   Posted 02/04/2008 at 15:06:47

Report abuse

What a good article that is above by Christine Foster, its all well and good backing KEIOC, but dont you think they now need help from all Evertonians who are upset with the lies that were produced to them before they Marked an X on there Ballot Papers, these Supporters Volunteers now deserve the backing of all, who like me am ashamed to call our Club the peoples club, and am sure there are many people who voted Yes for the Staduim move, and that was your right, but ask yourself, would you have voted yes for the move if you know what you do now.
Lie after lie we have recieved from our so called board, and even promised to look for a Plan A,B and C, have we seen it, "NO"
Lets get behind these people from KEIOC and stsnd side by side with them for the fight for truth, that us customers deserve, remember its our Club not the dopes over seeing things on our behalf, and payed large amounts of money for doing it, KEIOC do it voluntary.

POWER TO THE PEOPLE FROM THE SO CALLED PEOPLES CLUB !!!

Peoples Club my arse!!!
David Barks
5   Posted 02/04/2008 at 15:09:44

Report abuse

If KEIOC can prove that what they have been saying, that all their accusations are true then they will have no problem with a court fight over defamation. If they can not prove these things, and are in fact lying then the people in the club have every right to pursue a defamation suit. This isn’t stifling free speech, anyone can say anything if what they are saying is true. But if they are making claims that they can not back up, then they have a problem. That is what a defamation suit brings out, who is telling the truth. If you believe that everything that the people at KEIOC have been saying, including some crazy conspiracy theories, then you should have no problem with them being forced to show the facts in a court. You say the truth sometimes hurts. Well if what they are saying is the truth then it will only hurt the Board of Everton in court, not KEIOC. "Attack the person not the idea. Isn?t that what the club have just done?" No, not at all. They have claimed defamation based on what this group has been saying. If they have the facts to back them up then they should have no problem providing these as evidence in court and proving that they were completely truthful in what they had said. The club held a bloody vote, the yes vote won. I would call that a consultation.
Chris Taggart
6   Posted 02/04/2008 at 15:08:06

Report abuse

KEIOC accuse the club of vote rigging then EFC respond by giving them the oppertunity to remove such comments from their website (via a solictors letter) or they will take further (legal action).

KEIOC remove such comments, then choose to go public in a pathetic point scoring attempt.

KEIOC have allowed their "campaign" to be marred by petty insults,name calling etc

KEOC should get over themselves instead of employing the types of tactics best left to the school yard

Barry Scott
7   Posted 02/04/2008 at 15:22:24

Report abuse

Chris, KEIOC have never said the vote was rigged.

What they have said is the vote was a "calculated risk", their words not mine. If you are so inclined you can use http://www.archive.org to determine what changes were made to the KEIOC.

Stop making nonsense up.
Terry Smith
8   Posted 02/04/2008 at 15:38:29

Report abuse

The stadium move is realy pissing me off. Every week something new, Something that we should of known about etc etc
I would like Everton FC to send another ballot out to all Season Ticket Holders if they still would like to move to Kirkby or not.
I do beleive there has been a lot of Evertonians that had been brainwashed into the move with the fancy pictures etc etc as we or i was non of the wiser of more than 1 alternative or of alternatives OFFERED to Everton but got rebuffed..
I think then once & for all we all know what we still think to the ground move. And after all we are supposed to be the People's Club let the people have there say.
Chris Taggart
9   Posted 02/04/2008 at 15:35:16

Report abuse

Taken from today's Daily Post:

"It is focused on the assertion on KEIOC?s website that the Everton fans ballot over the stadium move last summer was unfair.

Club spokesman Ian Ross said: ?The simple truth is that we?re no longer prepared to have what we believe to be defamatory statements made about the club, its employees or the manner in which we staged the fans ballot.? "

Definitions taken from Encarta dictionary

Unfair (unethical in business) Not equitable in business dealings

Rigged (arrange outcome dishonestly)

To affect the outcome of something by intervening dishonestly or unfairly to gain an advantage

From the Echo 21/08/2007

"Dave Kelly, spokesman for Keep Everton In Our City, said fans? concerns about the vote meant it was vital its completion was open.

?We believe it is in the interests of democracy for the count to be open and transparent, so we can see for ourselves what happens if more than one vote is received from the same person.?

But Everton said ERS, which says it has systems in place to ensure votes are not duplicated, do not need monitoring during the count.

A spokesman said: ?By asking to be there, KEIOC are challenging the integrity of ERS, acknowledged experts in their field. ERS have handled the entire process in an impeccable manner.?

ERS director Simon Hearn said: ?We are trusted as an independent organisation, who declare results accurately.? "

I?m not making anything up, i am just sick of the loony anti-Board bias from the KEIOC People's Front or should that be the People's Front of KEIOC ....splitters :)

Neil Adderley
10   Posted 02/04/2008 at 15:46:14

Report abuse

Terry Smith - have your say.....well, sort of; (Warning; Be careful Blues, they have thrown in a couple of curve balls.)

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/independent-survey.html?utm_source=rss_everton&utm_medium=rss_feed&utm_term=INDEPENDENT%20SURVEY

A particular highlight;



Question; Would you follow Everton if they moved to another city?





What is going on with this football club?????
Barry Scott
11   Posted 02/04/2008 at 16:03:47

Report abuse

Chris T,

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=unfair

partiality or deception

KEIOC have indeed said the information available was partial and they have asked the question ’Were we misled’ on several pages.

But at no point have they said the vote was rigged.
Robert Carney
12   Posted 02/04/2008 at 16:37:09

Report abuse

The way forward in this campaign is to leaflet the people of Kirkby. Truth will hurt Wyness and Kenwright more than internet sites. Though the level of debate has been incredible and informative, a street campaign before local elections will make a lot of people open their eyes. Politicians will be wetting themselves.

Also if there is no opposition in Kirkby to the official line asking people to spoil their votes is just as effective.

A meeting in April with an agenda to meet the people of Kirkby on the doorsteps with hard facts will in my opinion will do the campaign to stay in Liverpool a great move forward. Knowsley have been sending out advanced notice of parking permits and information to residents, years before the devolopment is due. What does this tell you? Act before it is too late.
p.s. the club have also been asking local blue fans to support the planning application.

Robert Carney
13   Posted 02/04/2008 at 16:47:20

Report abuse

Christine, sorry, I forgot to say a great piece. Lots of people since hearing about the legal threats, are questioning the club.

Shows you what a bunch of shits they are.
Michael Hunt
14   Posted 02/04/2008 at 16:46:03

Report abuse

Neil, Doh! The current EFC survey (on the OS now) question did not say that, it said:

’Would you support the Club if YOU moved to another City’.

Quite a key difference!
Greg Murphy
15   Posted 02/04/2008 at 16:45:57

Report abuse

The vote counting procedure (sic) wasn’t rigged. The ERS would have ensured that.

However, the voting pre-amble was most definitely not impartial. That’s something the ERS had no control over.

Basically, for the vote to have been completely impartial the club would have had to provide all voters with two equally weighted "pro" and "con" cases.

It didn’t - as was its wont - and we were just given a heavily spun pro-move argument with the rhetoric ratcheted up several notches after voting had got underway (i.e when campaigning should have stopped).

Given the closeness of the outcome, less than 3,000 voting Blues swung it (think the Paddock), I’m convinced that the club knew with a week to go that it was losing.

Hence Terry Leahy’s very articulate but highly desperate open letter right at the death. I believe that was the turning point for many waverers and that’s ultimately what secured the "yes" majority.

Whether that majority is also a "mandate" is another matter.
Barry Scott
16   Posted 02/04/2008 at 16:57:02

Report abuse

It did say:

’Would you support the Club if they moved to another City??.

but it has now been changed to:

’Would you support the Club if YOU moved to another City??


They have changed it.
Joe Ludden
17   Posted 02/04/2008 at 17:06:50

Report abuse

Semantics is all we are playing.. the vote was rigged or wasn’t impartial etc etc. Greg Murphy makes the point. The result may be counted correctly, but that doesn’t mean it was a fair ballot. As far as it was spun, Evertonians were not choosing Kirkby over GP, they were choosing Kirkby over the death of the club - as it was made out to be. That is far from fair. There were more ballots uncast than the winning margin of votes (So I understand). the vote isn’t even important anymore. Why? Because the Kirkby deal isn’t what it was back then at the time of the vote. We were lied to / mislead / misunderstood .. semantics again... If the question had been "should we find a deliverable way to redevelop GP or should we move to kirkby" then what would the result have been? Bully’s job is to find deliverable options. If he cant, then he cannot do his job.

In reference to Christine’s fine article, Bully has shamed the club in attacking Evertonians. BK has allowed him to do it. It seems we have a board of yes men and Bully sits at the top. He is damaging the good name of the club and the likes of Chris Taggart should understand that first and foremost. KEIOC are operating with only the best intentions of Everton FC. Can anyone, seriously, for a second think that Bully and Tesco’s are doing the same??

Disclaimer: Bully is a colloquial nickname for Keith Wyness and in no way represents his character or activities. The name is simply a well recognised jovial name for the CEO of Everton FC and has no connections or connotations to the actual meaning of the word.

.... this is what we have become...
Art Greeth
18   Posted 02/04/2008 at 17:48:51

Report abuse

Christine, like you I love my club and am very proud of its history and standing in the game. Again, like you, I am a fierce defender of free speech. However, I beg to differ with you on one key point:

Free speech comes at a price. Principally, you have to take responsibility for your words and the consequences of them.

From what I?ve seen on the KEIOC site and other Everton-relate sites ? such as this forum ? there have been totally, but TOTALLY, unsubstantiated personal attacks on the club administrators and individuals. This has been the case for more than a year now.

You state that the club is attacking the person (or in this case, KEIOC) rather than the idea. That is, applying the ad hominem argument. Well Christine, far, far too many anti-Kirkby posters in my mind base their whole rationale and argument on the defamatory claim that Wyness is a cheating, lying thief. Are they not indulging in exactly the same practice as you are now condemning the club for?

The current spat, as you call it, between the club and KEIOC is not disgraceful in my mind. It is? sad. I do not consider it, as you do, as ?bullying passionate supporters?. It is possible to argue that the club have rather been very temperate for more than a year now in the face of some highly defamatory language posted on public forums against the likes of Wyness and Kenwright. If you are going to be truly even-handed on the issue, you must recognize that some of the language and accusations levelled at them has, to use your own word, been ?shameful?.

I understand the passions involved in an extremely emotive issue. That in no way gives all-comers the right to fabricate and post what they like in public. Thus, my defence of free speech? with the proviso of taking responsibility for the consequences of your words. Too many posters on this issue simply do not do this.

The rest of your article, I?m afraid, extrapolates the right (or otherwise, depending on your point of view) of the club to take a stand against what they clearly regard as highly defamatory language, and weds it with other issues related to the ground move. In my opinion, the two are mutually exclusive and so you arrive at a false conclusion.
Robert Carney
19   Posted 02/04/2008 at 18:25:01

Report abuse

What you have to remember about defamatory law, it was set up by an elite to protect themselves. It has nothing to do with justice. The first rule of Justice is innocent until proven quilty.

Libel law is guilty until you prove your innocence. In America and many Western European states this law is laughed at and not on the statute books because it stifles free speach.

Jay Campbell
20   Posted 02/04/2008 at 18:07:25

Report abuse

Christine great post, heartfelt, sincere and a correct analyis of our board of directors. Kenwright, Wyness are so out of touch with the fans it?s unbelievable. Kenwright?s actions over this move and his willingness to allow Wyness to do whatever he like?s has left me with nothing but hatred for this man.

I still cannot believe Evertonians are so stupid and blind to these vultures' intentions coz one thing is certain they will bring this club to it?s knee?s and the damage will be beyond repair.

Before anyone say?s this will never happen to us and "We are Everton" and the usual other bollocks, please note that we haven?t even had the bottle to stand up and challenge Kenwright and Wyness regarding this issue.

At what point have they been put in a position where as they have had no choice but to explain themselves with open sincerity to the fans?? Never. Everyone is content to just sit around and let it happen and when it all goes tits up you?ll have no-one to blame but yourselves. Me I?ll never follow that man to Kirkby ever.

Ed Fitzgerald
21   Posted 02/04/2008 at 18:05:21

Report abuse

Art

Your trust in the board of our club is touching. There are many elections that many independent adjudicators state are carried out legally but that does not make the vote fair or even democratic. There are a number of points I would like you or someone to answer

? Are you saying that people have no right to be critical of Kenwright and Wyness? I thought that I had every right to question their statements if they appeared to be duplicitous or we were told one thing prior to the vote only to be told something different a few months later. Let's start with a simple thing ? estimated costs for example. I don?t think people stating they feel they have been misled should result in the frankly ludicrous and damaging statement from the club towards KEIOC or anyone else

? As the mess surrounding Kirkby has unravelled over many months e.g. planning problems, lack of finance, transport issues and government concerns... do you not think it sensible for supporters to continue to question and protest? You seem to say we should just accept the wisdom of the Board and Bill Kenwright in particular. His pronouncements regarding future investment over a long period of time are well documented and have often proved premature or wishful thinking.

? I am still unsure of the eligibility criteria that permitted some to vote and disapplied others. In particular I would like to know the position of the shareholders voting rights explained to me clearly and in plain English. Some people who were eligible to vote did not get ballot papers due to supposed admin problems.

? More salient to the ?fairness? of the vote is that we did not get told the full picture prior to the vote. Some people might suggest this was being a tad mendacious by the Board, where as others would just call it ?lies? or misleading the supporters.

? If everything is hunky dory and KEIOC and many, many other disgruntled supporters are just luddites in the way they are thinking, why won't the club hold a public debate so these issues can be discussed with some degree of transparency (or have a debate on the radio at the very least)?
? What I suspect Christine?s excellent article is alluding to is that the club are growing ever more desperate to gag those who are showing dissent publicly. The argument for Kirkby is growing ever more tenuous as the problems surrounding the move and statements (not from Evertonians necessarily) contradict the line the club are taking e.g. from Bestway and HOK.

I am sorry Art but like Christine I too am appalled at the club's actions and its attempts to stifle debate. The People's Club has a hollow ring to it these days. The club's response to Benitez's comments mentions the club's considerable history and tradition; it is a shame they don?t respect the traditions of a club that has been a big influence in the history of football and a key part of the City of Liverpool?s culture and tradition.

Chris Briddon
22   Posted 02/04/2008 at 19:18:17

Report abuse

I am pleased to see that my club have stood up for themselves for a change.

I have spent the last few months listening to people accusing them of lying, that the vote was unfair, that Keith is only in it for the money and all other sorts of accusations thrown at them without them rising to the bait.

If KEIOC want to resort to name calling (they don?t appear to have much else to offer) then let them be brought to account for it. If they believe it, then back it up with hard evidence.
Tom Hughes
23   Posted 02/04/2008 at 18:59:11

Report abuse

Christine,
Absolutely spot on!

These people have misled, and don’t like people exposing them. They gave us the hardsell with the vote, and now they are playing the bully to shut us up. KW was given the opportunity to enter open debate with KEIOC but refused, threatening to leave the radio studio unless he answered only questions from the presenter which he had prepared for. He was not even allowed to comment on his many wildly inaccurate pre-vote assertions at the AGM where instead a "specialist" was wheeled out to calm the masses, whereupon the supposed expert then revealed that he hadn’t even read the HOK report that he had been hired to dismiss. The whole process would be laughable if the consequences for our great club weren’t so serious.
Barry Scott
24   Posted 02/04/2008 at 19:19:42

Report abuse

Art said:

"From what I?ve seen on the KEIOC site [...] there have been totally, but TOTALLY, unsubstantiated personal attacks on the club administrators and individuals. This has been the case for more than a year now."

There is no personal attacks or any defammatory statement on the KEIOC website. Look for yourself... we seem to be going around in circles, people need to look what has actually been published on the website before putting their thoughts into print.

Everything on the KEIOC website as far as I can see is legally safe to be there regardless if the club agree with the views or not.
Neil Adderley
25   Posted 02/04/2008 at 20:02:19

Report abuse

"Neil, Doh! The current EFC survey (on the OS now) question did not say that, it said:

?Would you support the Club if YOU moved to another City?.

Quite a key difference!"

Michael - the question has been changed - spooky eh!

Art Greeth
26   Posted 02/04/2008 at 20:08:51

Report abuse

Barry Scott... that may well be the case now as, in their own open letter, KEIOC admit to removing/editing offensive material.

There have been many personally offensive posts in the forum in the last year that stayed up for a long time.

Just look at this very thread to see once again the vitriolic language being used against certain individuals. It may be cathartic for the poster, but it in no way does it legitimise or advance the anti-Kirkby view, IMO.
Christine Foster
27   Posted 02/04/2008 at 20:01:07

Report abuse

Of the People, For the People, By the People.

Alas the US constitution does not extend to Goodison Park. It should because that was the meaning and the intent of the comments I am sure. The trouble is the board risk being hung by its own petard.

Perception or fact becomes irrelevant when principals are broken.

The club only has one real chance of retaining the high morale ground and that is to repond to the voiced concerns in a public consultation. By the use of scare tactics they have attempted to stifle opposition. It may not have been ther intent to do so (debateable) but nonetheless thats how it will be percieved by the media, the fans and by any third party.

It is an action that can only be described as bad judgement. The club has not singularly pointed to a comment, a phrase or an article in particular, it has issed a general warning about defamatory statements. Thats not dealing in facts, thats bullying. Thats pressure

One has to ask why the board has responded in such a way. It is obvious that they are increasingly uncomfortable with the inability to win the supporters over to view the options from their perspective. Is the board under pressure from outside influences? clearly Tesco would not be comfortable with the debate otherwise it would not have demanded an exclusitivity clause that forbids alternative discussions.
Clearly their is dissent in the rank and file and pressure from outside to put it down.

No matter what the cause the result is the same. It brings our great club into disrepute by threatening its own supporters.
Art Greeth
28   Posted 02/04/2008 at 20:51:58

Report abuse

Ed Fitzgerald. Where do I say any where in my post that I "trust the board"? Where do I say "the vote (was) fair or even democratic"? I don't at all. Nor do I say, and nor do I believe, that "people have no right to be critical of Kenwright and Wyness". I ? as an ex-journalist ? truly believe in the right of freedom of speech and you do indeed have every right to question them.

That was not, and is not, the thrust of my post. Like Christine, I am defending freedom of speech. Unlike Christine, I believe, I think implict in that right is to take responsibility for your words and their consequences. Again, unlike Christine, that obligation cuts both ways ? and I stand by my statement (and this very thread proves it) that a lot of posters simply post very offensive comments against individuals associated with the club which, whilst cathartic for them, have no basis in reality or truth.

Please don't attribute words and sentiments to me that I clearly have not expressed ? least of all think. I have not said, nor believe, that "we should just accept the wisdom of the board and Bill Kenwright in particular". It is right and proper, given the importance and impact of the move, that people have the right to continue to challenge the club on the matter. I am simply saying, in reply to Christine, that the charges she uses against the club and Wyness in particular ? that he uses the ad hominem argument, attacking individuals, not their arguments ? equally applies in reverse. It does not advance the anti-Kirkby lobby, in my view, that too many posters are simply abusive to the likes of KW and BK.

As for the "eligibility criteria" you refer to, I'm sorry Ed, but that is just nit-picking. It was a sizeable enough representation of the Everton community IMO that in no way could have been cherry-picked to sway the vote one way or another.

Further, the board ? the club's guardians, whether you and others like it or not, clearly campaigned for and endorsed the move. It was not beholden to them to present counter arguments against the move. To think otherwise and believe we were not "told the full picture prior to the vote" (by the board, I presume) is naive.

Possibly, as you say, this move against KEIOC by the club may well be a sign that they "are growing ever more desperate to gag those who are showing dissent publicly". But that is only one possibility and is pure speculation on your part. Another possibility is that, quite simply, the club and individuals within it have said "enough! We WILL defend our reputations against some of the more outrageous claims against us." Can either of us categorically say that we are correct? No, we cannot. But, thanks to the freedom of speech available to us, we CAN argue the toss one way or the other.

You and Christine are appalled. I am saddened. However, unlike both of you, I believe, I do not hold that ONLY the club or Keith Wyness are culpable and despicable. For a long, long time on internet forums such as this and KEIOC people have been making outrageous statements. The club and KW's actions is a reminder, as is the basis of my point of view, that freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and obligations to the author. It is not a carte blanche to say and express anything and everything without possible recriminations.
Art Greeth
29   Posted 02/04/2008 at 21:15:19

Report abuse

Christine wrote: "The club has not singularly pointed to a comment, a phrase or an article in particular, it has issued a general warning about defamatory statements. That's not dealing in facts, that's bullying."

They don't need to Christine, but if push comes to shove and it does go to court, you can rest assured they will reproduce evidence of the same. I've seen it with my own eyes on KEIOC, so don't try a give me a revisionist history, please. And that IS a fact. By its own admission, KEIOC has removed/edited material that could be construed as offensive. Some might interpret that as an admission of guilt or some degree of culpability.

You interpret the club's actions as bullying. Often in such claims, it is a warning shot across the bows. "Retract, or we will prosecute". Now if there follows a concerted campaign by the club to have KEIOC off the web, I WOULD construe that as bullying ? but this action? No. Not at all ? sorry.

And again, it is a non-sequitur by you to conclude that this action is because "obviously that they are increasingly uncomfortable with the inability to win the supporters over to view the options from their perspective". As is the idea you put forward that "clearly Tesco would not be comfortable with the debate otherwise it would not have demanded an exclusivity clause that forbids alternative discussions". Two possible conclusions, but not necessarily "obvious" or "clear" as you wish to promote. You are adding two and two and making five there, Christine, to support your argument, methinks. Exclusivity agreements are commonplace in projects of this nature.

And if you believe that "threatening its own supporters" brings the club into disrepute, you can flip the coin and say the same of some supporters and their words and actions. By all means, defend your corner and support your position Christine, but your arguments are undermined if you are not prepared to apply them equally to both sides of the divide, IMO.
Christine Foster
30   Posted 02/04/2008 at 21:35:29

Report abuse

Art, some good and fair points, yes you are quite correct in saying that many of the comments made by some on this forum and KEIOC are critical to the point of being abusive. Thats because its an emotive subject.
I try to deal with the facts in an even handed way and there is much distortion of the truth or perceived truth, on all sides. I have long said in my threads (all of them) that the only way for this to be resolved is to open up the facts for all to see and involve all stakeholders in a clear and transparent process. That is and always has been my view on this.
I cannot expect every respondent ot a forum to show integrity or respect to the writer or to the subject. But I do expect that the board of directors (any board of directors) of Everton FC show integrity in conducting its affairs. One could say with some justification that they have by allowing a vote and getting a mandate. But integrity is not a statement, its in the actions one take. The board of directors of Everton FC clearly believe their integrity has been attacked in threatening to sue the KEIOC. But with integrity you must always have credibility and I would contest that increasinglythe stance taken by the club has stretched credibility and in doing so damaged their own integrity.

I do not condone personal attackes of an abusive nature as I think they detract from the real issues. But its reality that if you accept to take a position on a board of such a high profile club you must also accept that with that territory goes the fact that you actions will be viewed critically. A supporter only has their view. A tear drop in a blue ocean. A Director has the power to shape a club and its future but that power has been invested in them to act in the best interests of the club, its shareholders and yes, its supporters.

This is not some academic debate over the semantics of the application of principals. Its impossible to be even handed when one is not party to all the facts.

I keep saying it till I am blue in the face to the club, give us the facts, give us the chance to understand your position Give us the chance to put alternatives Give us a voice.
Jay Harris
31   Posted 02/04/2008 at 21:58:48

Report abuse

Art
Here are the FACTS of what people say.

BK "the cheque will be in the bank in the morning"(Fortress sports fund) - IT WASNT

KW - we will be building a world class stadium at minimal cost because Tesco will be contributing - WE WONT AND THEY WONT.

KW - "It will be a 55000 seater stadium" then:(AS SOON AS THE LOOP can be demonstrated to hold 55000) "It needs to be capable of up to 75000 seats"

These are blatant lies intended to mislead the supporters.

I don't even have to mention ticket and travel fiascos,transfer fiacos,investment fiascos etc.

Is it any wonder that a large amount of supporters have no confidence in these people.

They now resort to bully boy tactics against a small group of loyal and longstanding supporters who they refused to meet because they dont like their opinions.
Neil Adderley
32   Posted 02/04/2008 at 22:40:42

Report abuse

Art Greeth - "Another possibility is that, quite simply, the club and individuals within it have said enough! We WILL defend our reputations against some of the more outrageous claims against used."

Can you point me in the direction of these "outrageous claims" made by KEIOC "against the club and individuals." Or is it possible that you are assuming "outrageous claims" have been made, in which case it is pure speculation on your part. Could that not in itself be construed as defamatory to individuals or the supporters group KEIOC?

What next Art - supporters threatening to take legal action on fellow supporters?

Tommy Gibbons
33   Posted 02/04/2008 at 23:37:51

Report abuse

FFS, what are you people, on?!
You do not have a choice in the matter, we?re moving and that's that. If you don?t like it then don?t support the club. It?s a simple choice for you isn?t it? You eiter follow the club or you don?t.

Everton have realised they cannot get anymore support from within the city; the City of Liverpool do not want the club ? remember that the Kings Dock was offered to LFC first; Stanley Park was/has now been offered to LFC but not us; they will not let us have Walton Hall Park; the so-called link-up with Bestway only appeared after EFC had offered the vote to their supporters therefore letting all and sundry know that EFC had actually been offered a concrete/real partnership with other parties and signalling their intent to move.

Whether we like it or not, the power on the council is LFC-led, They/LFC do not want Everton in the city ? it?s as simple as that.

Everton know this therefore they?re making plans to move.. Why do you think Robert Earl is on the Board? He is there to oversee the move to Kirkbyand when the project is complete he will arrange new funding for the club from US investors.

Their is a plan and a strategy being moved along here to enable EFC to compete with the Sky4 and their ilk. Everton will move, Everton may lose a small percentage of ?scouse? support which will be easily outweighed by the influx of new fans and those who were not willing to pay for obstructed views.

It seems people on here think we are a small club, incapable of attracting modern support to a modern stadium; fortunatley they are wrong. Everton are a big club and have vast support, the potential is their all investors are waiting for is to see Everton make the right move to open us up for investment!.

So forget all the twaddle being bandied about by both sides and let's get on with the move.. Remember, you do not have any choice whatsover in the matter ? other than to withold your support.

Ciaran Duff
34   Posted 02/04/2008 at 23:49:11

Report abuse

At the back of my mind, I really wonder whether KEIOC have the best interests of the CLUB at heart? They are all obviously die hard supporters and mean well but it seems to be that they want to keep Everton in the city AT ALL COSTS (look at the name of the group). Sure, that is the preferred option of the majority of supporters but only if it makes economic sense for the club.
As I’ve said on 2 other posts, you need to take motive into account. I can’t see why Everton would move to Kirkby if it wasn’t in their best interest. If they could stay in the city and it was financially viable then they obviously would. If they could redevelop Goodison and it was financially viable then they would. However the motives of KEIOC are pretty obvious. They put location above whats best for the club. They seem to delight in any set back (eg Bellefield planning proposal rejection, Kirkby residents objections, delays in timetable) etc. Think about if the Kirkby deal is hampered and eventually fails. Who will pick up the pieces? What other options will we have and where will the money come from? KEIOC will claim the credit but carry none of the responsibility for moving the club out of the mess.
ps - Every major development I’ve ever seen runs over budget and there are always delays. These are not Kirby specific - if, for example. we went for the Goodison redevelopment then I’m sure there would be similar if not worse cost and time over runs.
Tony Stanley
35   Posted 03/04/2008 at 01:15:19

Report abuse

There is obviously a lot of discontent about the stadium move, so let's address it. Let there be a forum with reps from EFC and reps from KEIOC, a televised event would be ideal. Let Everton FC explain to all the doubters, of which there are many and growing by the day, all the facts regarding alternative sites: Goodison redevelopment etc... Because, if Everton Football Club really are the People's Club.... Well, you know the rest!
Derek Thomas
36   Posted 03/04/2008 at 06:38:31

Report abuse

With the skids under ( FREE AND FAIR) Mugabe, would any one care to name a potential hypothetical successor??
Alan Willo
37   Posted 03/04/2008 at 07:42:18

Report abuse

Christine, you do make me smile at times! Your comments regarding EFC gagging and playing hard because they don?t have an argument is a load of rubbish. KEIOC have removed comments from the website that have been deemed "liable" so I guess they are guilty as they have removed such comments so EFC was correct to issue legal letter.

KEIOC don?t represent the fans, you are a Militant section who have taken it on yourselves to do so. I and others voted Yes and can live with that fact, the aggression in my book is all from KEIOC and we have several examples, hooligan pics as a starter.

How many Chairmen have you had? Can you all tell us why the organizers keep changing? " The truth please." I know the answer and it would shock the EFC fans how some (not all) conduct yourselves.

Let?s look at the KEIOC name, does that mean you are all happy moving the stadium to Speke Airport or even L8? I guess not because the No?s would be even higher so to me the name is a misrepresentation too maybe KEINL (Keep Everton in North Liverpool) or just off County Rd. Either way, a bunch of luddites seems the best way to describe you all.

I would have respected the vote either way and lived with it; sadly some don?t. I have said it to you loads of times Christine your attacks on the Board weaken your valid argument, please direct you anger at LCC who hit EFC every chance they get (Bellefield for example) yet LFC can do what they like with LCC Blessing!! The enemy is not EFC but LCC.

EVERTON HAVE NOT LEFT THE CITY, THE CITY HAS LEFT EVERTON. COYB

Paul Gladwell
38   Posted 03/04/2008 at 08:21:33

Report abuse

Alan they also bent over backwards in delaying deadlines so we could muster our ringfenced £30,000,000 for possibly the best possible site we could ever of wished for.
Brian Waring
39   Posted 03/04/2008 at 09:15:09

Report abuse

Alan Willo, you say " KEIOC don’t represent the fan’s " Well mate, as far as I’m concerned they are representing me, as a fan. And I can imagine they are representing many more fan’s out there.
Art Greeth
40   Posted 03/04/2008 at 08:57:19

Report abuse

Neil Adderley. If you had paid close attention to all that I posted in this thread you will have seen that I alluded to a number of websites, not only KEIOC. The outrageous claims made HAVE been posted on KEIOC?s website. I have seen them with my own eyes, so don?t now try and tell me that they were never there. Furthermore, at no point I have suggested that they represented the official opinion of KEIOC, so please? don?t attribute to me accusations I have not made.

If I could be arsed I could trawl though this very website and give you many, MANY links of outrageous claims by posters against the club and individuals which are clearly defamatory, based on bigoted opinion, not fact. Indeed, look in this very thread for examples.

No speculation on my part ? pure fact. No defaming of individuals or the supporters group KEIOC by me. KEIOC admit in their own open letter to subsequently editing or removing what could be construed as defamatory material. Fact, not speculation.

Jay Harris? in answer to your FACTS.

?BK "the cheque will be in the bank in the morning"(Fortress sports fund) - IT WASN?T?: who was the deceiver and who was deceived here? BK, or whatisname? Samuelson?

?KW - we will be building a world class stadium at minimal cost because Tesco will be contributing - WE WONT AND THEY WONT?. This represents your opinion, not fact. We have been told the stadium will be built to UEFA specifications which rather negates your claim. Clearly Tesco WILL be contributing to the project, so again, you are FACTUALLY wrong. I accept it is not yet crystal clear just how much the project WILL cost EFC. But your bald statement here is far from correct.

?KW - "It will be a 55000 seater stadium" then: (AS SOON AS THE LOOP can be demonstrated to hold 55000) "It needs to be capable of up to 75000 seats": a glib, throwaway line, ill-considered. I don?t believe anybody at the time gave it any credence whatsoever. It was said in response to KEIOC?S ?spoiler? declaration in the week of the vote that presented the Loop as an alternative.

I and others at the time criticised the club for the awful PR job they had done leading up to the vote, considering that they were advocating for a ?yes? vote. In spite of their worst efforts, the board still achieved the mandate they desired. Tough to swallow for some, I understand, but to present your ?facts? as evidence that the club and its officers only lie to the fans and to further imply that fans are gullible enough to fall for it is, IMHO, mistaken.
Neil Adderley
41   Posted 03/04/2008 at 10:13:07

Report abuse

Art - "Neil Adderley. If you had paid close attention to all that I posted in this thread you will have seen that I alluded to a number of websites, not only KEIOC. The outrageous claims made HAVE been posted on KEIOC?s website. I have seen them with my own eyes, so don?t now try and tell me that they were never there. Furthermore, at no point I have suggested that they represented the official opinion of KEIOC, so please? don?t attribute to me accusations I have not made."

Can you post the "outrageous claims" you have seen on the KEIOC site here? Can you also post the "material" that has not been removed from the KEIOC website, despite the demands and threat of legal action by Keith Wyness, if said "material" was not removed by close of business on Friday March 28th?

Thanks.
Art Greeth
42   Posted 03/04/2008 at 10:54:03

Report abuse

Neil... I have seen comments in their forum, for which KEIOC have to assume some responsibility, in which the highly defamatory language against KW and others has been used... the usual highly emotive language which lends nothing to the debate, that he is a "lying, cheating, thieving twat, only in it to profit for himself..." ad nauseum.

Last night I actually tried to access the KEIOC forum again (something I haven’t done for months, I admit, because the level of debate there didn’t interest me). For some reason it is "locked". Now I don’t know if that is down to me or other factors. I tried what I thought were my passwords - they didn’t work. I’m just not that arsed to re-register mate.

The highly charged, highly emotive, and - sorry to insist - highly defamatory language HAS appeared on KEIOC, as it does in this very thread. Don’t try and pretend otherwise.
Tom Hughes
43   Posted 03/04/2008 at 10:42:37

Report abuse

Tony Gibbons, with all respect this is typical of so many (not all) yes voters and is full of myths and plain untruths.

"If you don?t like it then don?t support the club. It?s a simple choice for you isn?t it? You eiter follow the club or you don?t. Everton have realised they cannot get anymore support from within the city"

This is a farcical comment. We have the highest localised support of any of the larger clubs in the league, the largest walk up percentage. (We apparently only have a UK fanbase of 600k+, over 400k live in Merseyside). We are talking about the need/desire to expand capacity, and you are saying we don’t need what is a high proportion of our supporters (the NO-voters) to go anymore. The truth is we don’t fill our current home every week never mind a stadium with 10-15,000 more seats, therefore I think we need everyone going, and many more besides for this to even break even, which is highly debateable given the increased costs to the club we now know about. Saying we can afford to lose any of our support let alone such a large proportion is a ridiculous notion.

"the City of Liverpool do not want the club ? remember that the Kings Dock was offered to LFC first;"

I think you’re having a go at the wrong people here..... Perhaps it was offered to them first because it was felt they could’ve afforded it...... and how right they would have been. Where is your condemnation of the club in not fulfilling there side of that deal? All for the sake of just £30m? They blew potentially the biggest opportunity in the club’s history.... How? Why?

"Stanley Park was/has now been offered to LFC but not us"

EFC have never applied to build a stadium on Stanley park, check all planning applications, it’s open to all.... Liverpool did, simple as that.

"they will not let us have Walton Hall Park"

Everton were approached by Sainsburys pre-vote with a view to producing a stadium on WHP. They stonewalled it. It’s been all over the news recently.

"the so-called link-up with Bestway only appeared after EFC had offered the vote to their supporters"

EFC where notified of the Loop idea by Architect and Evertonian Trevor Skempton at the begining of 2007, many months before the vote. The club stonewalled him, even after he managed to get LCC and the city planning office involved in outlining the scheme. The club then stonewalled Bestway after they had world renowned HOK produce an outline report....... Do you detect a common theme here?

"Whether we like it or not, the power on the council is LFC-led, They/LFC do not want Everton in the city ? it?s as simple as that."

Again, completely untrue..... The head of the council, the head of the Labour party opposition in the council and the head of city planning department are ALL Season Ticket holding Evertonians, who have ALL expressed their desire to keep the club in the city. The club have resisted any further talks with LCC regarding sites and redevelopment options.

"It seems people on here think we are a small club, incapable of attracting modern support to a modern stadium; fortunatley they are wrong."

Where has this every been said or intimated?

"Everton are a big club and have vast support, the potential is their all investors are waiting for is to see Everton make the right move to open us up for investment!."

And why does this not apply to a redevelopment, the Loop, WHP or wherever else? There is no substance nor validity in any of these points to promote Kirkby ahead of the other options.
Gavin Ramejkis
44   Posted 03/04/2008 at 10:55:35

Report abuse

Art - who was the deception from Samuelson or BK? BK found Samuelson and perpetuated the story whilst deep in battle with Paul Gregg in an attempt to retain controlling interest in the club, a master PR stunt which succeeded for BK as PG was lambasted with BK released stories to the local press at the same time. By the time PG had given up the fight the mythical Fortress Fund did too as it was no longer required/actually existed. Conjecture but the majority not beyond the realms of being very close to the truth given the circumstances around the controlling interests of the club at that time. Paul Gregg later eluded to the way the club is controlled also being a major factor in why the mythical search for investment has never come to fruition and before you highlight our latest director he merely bought Paul Gregg’s shares and went guarantor on a bank loan for new players which in itself is admirable and has paid dividends but is not a hard investment of their own cash.
Tom Hughes
45   Posted 03/04/2008 at 11:32:40

Report abuse

Art,
Ask yourself this..... There are literally hundreds of defamatory threads and remarks against KW and others on all TW forums, and many more besides why aren’t the club doing the same with them? Is it that they see KEIOC as the enemy’s flagship? How coincidental that it also coincides with the arrival in town of Tesco’s main fixer who presides over pushing these projects through when the local’s get a bit shirty.

A forum is just that, individuals airing their views. Where are the defamatory statements by KEIOC themselves? Incidentally I have been able to open any of their forums/articles no problem. They have recently remodelled the whole site and perhaps your password has expired.
Ed Fitzgerald
46   Posted 03/04/2008 at 11:24:40

Report abuse

Art

Why is it nit picking to ask for all of the eligiblity criteria to be revealed. In fact why cant a register of those who were eligible be posted on web site so those who claim to have never received their voting papers can be identified. I want to know what the position of the shareholders and their voting rights were.

The sizeable numbers you speak of in favour of the move represents less than 45% of our average gate and yes I have accounted for away fans - on an average of 2000)

Why cant the club or ERS reveal the results. I simply want to know the shareholders voting rights were and how this influenced the vote. Whats the problem?
Neil Adderley
47   Posted 03/04/2008 at 11:20:19

Report abuse

Hello Art - Correct me if I?m wrong but I am sure that the KEIOC forum, as all forums should, including TW?s own has a ?disclaimer? or ?conditions of use.? My understanding is that the threat of legal action was aimed at "material" on the site itself and not the forum. If Keith Wyness is looking to shut down Everton forums on the grounds of "highly defamatory" comments made against his good self then he is going to be a very busy man.

As far as I am aware the KEIOC forum is still open for posting.

It is dangerous ground that Wyness is treading - if his aim was to alienate a section of the club's supporters then maybe it could be argued that he has succeeded - although it seems to me that through his actions he has only succeeded in further alienating himself and the rest of the Everton board of directors from a growing number of Evertonians.

You will have no doubt noticed that Malcolm Carter (Bestway) has publically stated that;

"I was... stone-walled... by Everton[?s] Directors and to make things worse most all that was said publicly regarding the Bestway site by Everton... or it?s representatives was so inaccurate that so often it genuinely beggared belief and surprised me.?

Should Malcolm Carter now expect a legal threat from Keith Wyness and Everton FC and if that legal threat is not forthcoming, does that make it clear that Everton treated Carter and his team and the company in a shameful manner?

Whatever your stance on the proposal to move Everton FC to Kirkby, I think you would have to agree that it is all becoming very messy.

As Christine Foster says in the original article;

"In taking the action they have it has reinforced the belief of many with respect to the clubs arrogance in its treatment of those who would ask for answers."
Gerard Madden
48   Posted 03/04/2008 at 12:19:23

Report abuse

Tom says - ’The head of the council, the head of the Labour party opposition in the council and the head of city planning department are ALL Season Ticket holding Evertonians’ - thats meaningless, LibDems council leader is a goner and discredited and ruled out Walton Hall Park, Labour’s Anderson was bitterly against us moving to the Kings Dock and preferred us at the outskirts despite what he may have said (conveniently for himself) in the last year - btw I saw no mention of Everton in his parties much publicised key 8-point manifesto for the local council elections - wonder why? (Tee hee) And the Liverpool planners are the same ones (according to cllr Radford) who acted as agents of LFC in allowing their stadium to go ahead on protected grade II listed victorian parkland...
Michael Kenrick
49   Posted 03/04/2008 at 13:03:42

Report abuse

Ed, the shareholders were given the right to vote. They each got one vote, irrespective of the number of shares held. The number of "small" shareholders is around 300 (or is that the membership of the Shareholders Association?). Perhaps another number I recall is around 1,100...

Either way, as for their influence on the vote... some voted Yes, some voted No, some abstained/did not vote. I don’t really get the point you are raising.
chris roberts
50   Posted 03/04/2008 at 13:06:50

Report abuse

Before I get into any more bother over this issue it would be helpful if members of / supporters of KEIOC actually identified themselves on this forum because it seems to me that whenever anything untoward is said about KEOIC loads of people refer to KEOIC in the abstract or say "well that wasn’t KEOIC who said that was just Bob who supports them but..."

Or is it true there are only a dozen of them anyway in which case I’m amazed at their gall in claiming to represent ’most Evertonians’

Ciarán McGlone
51   Posted 03/04/2008 at 13:01:27

Report abuse

Art,

I don?t think you really understand the concept of defamation.... If I have an honestly held belief that Wyness is a money grabbing fúcker, and has no footballing interest in Everton, and is also a bullshitter... then that's not defamation.

Defamation is not a simple case of untruth vs truth.

Simple.
Ed Fitzgerald
52   Posted 03/04/2008 at 13:29:49

Report abuse

Michael

Thanks I just wanted to know thats all. At the time when the details were released I was out of the country so when I returned home I just voted. No more complex than that.

I just wanted to get some clarity, does anyone know the exact number 300 or 1100?
Jay Harris
53   Posted 03/04/2008 at 13:15:52

Report abuse

Art
I respected your contributions up to this point and admired the way you were fighting your corner in the face of adversity.

However I have to say I?m now starting to think you?re as full of shit as "The Magician" and his sidekick "Big Bonus".

?BK "the cheque will be in the bank in the morning"(Fortress sports fund) - IT WASN?T?: who was the deceiver and who was deceived here? BK, or whatisname? Samuelson?
Gavin has already answered this well with FACT.




?KW - we will be building a world class stadium at minimal cost because Tesco will be contributing - WE WONT AND THEY WONT?. This represents your opinion, not fact. We have been told the stadium will be built to UEFA specifications which rather negates your claim. Clearly Tesco WILL be contributing to the project, so again, you are FACTUALLY wrong. I accept it is not yet crystal clear just how much the project WILL cost EFC. But your bald statement here is far from correct.

Tesco have stated publicly they are not making any contribution to Everton?s costs (except for sorting contractor?s who will build at the rate Tesco pay).


And if you think the pictures shown AFTER THE VOTE are of a world class stadium then you are even more deluded than I thought.


?KW - "It will be a 55000 seater stadium" then: (AS SOON AS THE LOOP can be demonstrated to hold 55000) "It needs to be capable of up to 75000 seats": a glib, throwaway line, ill-considered. I don?t believe anybody at the time gave it any credence whatsoever. It was said in response to KEIOC?S ?spoiler? declaration in the week of the vote that presented the Loop as an alternative.
A lot of people gave it credence because he effectively blew the Loop out of contention and stonewalled the Bestway team.THAT IS A FACT!
Tony Williams
54   Posted 03/04/2008 at 13:41:56

Report abuse

Ciaran, I hope you are not a solicitor, as I wouldn?t want you defending me.

If you said, "Wyness is a money grabbing fúcker, and has no footballing interest in Everton, and is also a bullshitter" that is certainly defamation of character. You can try and side step the defamation aspect by saying "I believe" but I wouldn?t fancy your chances in a court of law.
Gary Williams
55   Posted 03/04/2008 at 14:01:51

Report abuse

I am extremely disappointed by the Clubs reaction to this. KEIOC have their faults but I don?t see anyone else challenging the move.

Kirkby is not the "Deal of the Century" promised in the glossy brochure that came with the ballot paper" That much is clearly true. So yes I am dissappointed by their action to try and shut up fans who rightly or wrongly clearly care enough about the club to get off their arses and do something.

Just as I am extremely disapoointed by the club's lack of action in Challenging Liverpool City Council allowing the Shite to destroy Stanley Park. Where was their crack legal team then?! We had been refused what the Shite were duly offered. We are clearly a vested interest in the Walton area. Yet the Board sat by and did fuck all.

I love my club but trust the board to deliver? Not fucking likely! I have heard too much bullshit from BK and his cronies ? Fortress sports fund anyone ?

He has good intentions I am sure but I am not fooled into thinking he and the Board know best just because they have made a few quid. There are plenty of stupid bastards walking around with brimming wallets talking bullshit. They fucked up the Kings Dock and they may yet fuck up Kirkby.

Everton as part of the community had a chance to support those who did not want to see Stanley Park destroyed for football. They stood by and did fuck all. The decision for Kirkby is due in May - if it all goes tits up then what is their plan then?

Fuck all...
Ciarán McGlone
56   Posted 03/04/2008 at 14:25:17

Report abuse

Tony,

What you somewhat unwittingly refer to as a ?sidestep?, is what's known as a defence.

There is absolutely nothing in what I posted that I do not honestly believe, and in that case it doesn?t constitute libel!

Wyness has muddied the water in regards to the facts of the stadium issue.... and he will also receive a huge bonus on completion of the deal.

There?s also the fact that a hell of a lot of people hold this opinion. Defamation? I think not.

If he thinks he?s got a case, he can be my guest.
Chris Roberts
57   Posted 03/04/2008 at 14:44:10

Report abuse

"It?s a classic move, if you can?t fight the idea or the facts because you would lose, gag the voice of opposition, threaten them personally. Attack the person not the idea. Isn?t that what the club have just done?"

No Christine this is what KEOIC (who I notice still aren?t identifying themselves on here) have done, not the club. Perhaps not the gagging but certainly the abuse of individuals and attacking the person. I?m suprised Wynes didn?t act sooner to be honest in view of the bollocks that has been said about him and our fellow supporter Kenwright.
Gary Williams
58   Posted 03/04/2008 at 15:42:33

Report abuse

Chris Roberts

What facts are there Chris? Because I am fucked if I know. I have seen precious little by way of facts from Everton throughout this whole sorry affair.

All I know is they seem determined to move to Kirkby whatever other plans are a possibility. Every other possible scenario such as the loop or the redevelopment of Goodison has been dimissed without consideration. Despite some serious detail being put forward by various well-informed experts in stadium dsign etc.

Kirkby is a done deal for the club and the fact that some fans don?t like clearly doesn?t sit well with them. They are frankly not dealing with this important issue very well and it doesn?t bode well for the future.

If Kirkby does not materialise then there is no Plan B and Mr Wyness frankly will have failed to deliver. We will be back to square one because the club have been too short-sighted to look at all the possibilities in detail. That is short-sighted to the point of stupidity. Don?t damn fellow fans for voicing concern as the concerns are not unfounded

I do not agree with KEIOC entirely but I did vote No on the basis that the full facts were not presented by the club. Nothing has changed as far as I can see other than the price has gone up and we are in the middle of a global credit crisis which means any money we have to borrow is going to cost shedloads more in interest payments. This combination means Kirkby becomes less attractive as the "deal of the century" on a daily basis.
Gerard Madden
59   Posted 03/04/2008 at 16:05:15

Report abuse

I disagree with almost everything you?ve written Gary. I think the Tesco/Knowsley deal has matured and become ever more attractive - like a fine french wine if you will. The banking world is in turbulance, no one is lending to each other, costs of steel are going up up and up, the tiny loop and other ?options? havent the acreage, political support and funding to back ?em up, the current banking/steel climate would make staying at Goodison or building elsewhere almost a pipe dream, on the other hand the Tesco/EFC/Knowsley deal has the acreage, the political support and the funds - project led by a life-long Evertonian who has led a British success story for many years - the £48 Billion pound (and rising) collossus that is Tesco?s plc...
Ciarán McGlone
60   Posted 03/04/2008 at 16:29:43

Report abuse

Yes, i was just thinking to myself that our potential stadium was maturing like a fine wine...

..while Goodison is a bottle of buckfast, and Bellfield is a small potatoe, or is it a cabbage with two sooty puppets on shatners bassoon...

Barry Scott
61   Posted 03/04/2008 at 16:31:26

Report abuse

Your post is nonsensical Mr. Madden.

The ’tiny loop’ is big enough to house a minimum capacity 50,000 stadium. (The 30,000 capacity in the report that club commissioned was deliberately did not take into account the proposed platform over the carriageways but that is another subject.)

You say that the loop has no political support yet you are are championing the Kirkby proposal, a proposal that has received objections from at least three councils Sefton, West Lancashire and Liverpool.

Also it is opposed by every political party in Kirkby except Labour.

In addition the secretary of state has said he will keep a close eye on the developments.

The Tesco turnover figure you quote is irrelevant because Tesco are not giving the club a penny. You can email a Tesco Corporate Affairs Manager at tony.fletcher@tesco.com or michael.kissman@tesco.com to confirm that if you like.

You forgot to mention that the club will not fuly own the stadium, Knowsley Council and a third unknown company will also be stakeholders.
Gavin Ramejkis
62   Posted 03/04/2008 at 16:45:45

Report abuse

Can anyone including yes and no voters alike please clarify the wording of the vote, from what I can remember, it was a vote to continue negotiations with Tesco and KBC and not a carte blanche agreement to move to Kirkby. If this was he case then when did that vote suddenly transform from continue negotiations to the fans voted to move? I’ll happily state I was a No voter and remain that way inclined but have always been irked by that wording if I am right.
Barry Scott
63   Posted 03/04/2008 at 16:57:07

Report abuse

"Are you in favour of relocating Everton Football Club to Kirkby?"

http://www.evertonfc.com/news/archive/ballot-result.html
Barry Scott
64   Posted 03/04/2008 at 16:59:03

Report abuse

?Based on the foregoing information, the Board is inclined to pursue the building of a new stadium in Kirkby.

The Board promised to ballot Evertonians to ascertain their views on this move.

The question is ?are you in favour of relocating Everton Football Club to Kirkby?

If the answer is ?No?, no further negotiations on the current, proposed scheme will take place. If the answer is ?yes?, we will continue negotiations with our two project partners.?
Tom Hughes
65   Posted 03/04/2008 at 17:55:08

Report abuse

Chris Roberts,
Why should KEIOC identify themselves on here? They have there own website if you wish to contact them, it really is as simple as that..... So again, where is your point regarding the issue of Kirkby, and KEIOC’s stance as regards that?
Tom Hughes
66   Posted 03/04/2008 at 17:59:15

Report abuse

Gerard,
A man of many names, yet little credibility....... Once again you speak and say nothing!
Tesco have Billions yet we are still having to pay for our ground of only millions? Super successfull Terry Leahy can do anything yet hasn’t a fraction of the wealth of say Peter Johnson, should we have stuck with him? None of it means anything in relation to the issue of EFC moving to Kirkby, or more importantly how we are going to fund it!! You simply talk in riddles. You say "The Kirkby plan is maturing like a fine wine"..... I assume by that you mean it is growing ever more expensive. To me it’s maturing more like a bottle of milk..... and the top is about to come off. There is next to no political support for this as will soon be revealed, certainly not from the major authorities around the region. As highlighted many times both existing and new local and national planning legislation is violated by this scheme meaning the enablers which didn’t cover the costs in anycase are no longer there. Not enough acreage at the Loop..... how big a stadium do you want? the Emirates can physically fit on the Loop as it is. Bridge the Southern edge, and practically any stadium on the planet would fit on it...... literally! Far be it from you to get your facts (even your name) correct though.
Greg Murphy
67   Posted 03/04/2008 at 19:15:37

Report abuse

Art Greeth -

Wyness did not refer to 75,000 as a capacity ambition in the week of the vote after the Loop emerged as a putative alternative. The only thing he said that week was his famous "rabbit" and "hat" quote.

He only mentioned 75,000 in late November, some three months after the vote, when it became clear that the Loop could hold 50,000.
Tom Hughes
68   Posted 03/04/2008 at 18:47:05

Report abuse

And again Gerard....

"Tom says - ?The head of the council, the head of the Labour party opposition in the council and the head of city planning department are ALL Season Ticket holding Evertonians? - thats meaningless,"

These are facts, and were in response to the assertion that the council has an LFC bias. The rest, once again having no relevance to the merits of the proposed move.
Art Greeth
69   Posted 03/04/2008 at 20:54:03

Report abuse

Oopps! Don’t quite know what went wrong with the previous post. I’ll try again, in different posts to answer those who have directly addressed me.

Gavin Ramejkis: ?BK found Samuelson and perpetuated the story whilst deep in battle with Paul Gregg in an attempt to retain controlling interest in the club, a master PR stunt which succeeded for BK as PG was lambasted with BK released stories to the local press at the same time. By the time PG had given up the fight the mythical Fortress Fund did too as it was no longer required/actually existed. Conjecture but the majority not beyond the realms of being very close to the truth given the circumstances around the controlling interests of the club at that time.?

In your own words, Gavin ? conjecture. You say it is close to the truth, I say it?s nonsense. Your ?conjecture? requires that Samuelson was a patsy primed by Bill and that Fortress Funds was a total fabrication. Unfortunately for your conjecture, both were/(are??) legit as a registered company and director before and after their association with EFC.

I?ll apply Occam?s Razor to this one, if you don?t mind. When you have two competing theories as to the validity or otherwise of something, believe in the more plausible one. More plausible is that Samuelson and FF failed to deliver, NOT that they were a contrivance of BK. If that makes me gullible in your and Jay Harris? eyes, so be it. I can live with it. Jay? in Gavin?s own words his interpretation of events is ?conjecture?, not FACT as you once again claim in a rather petulant response. I won?t bother addressing your other responses because you appear unable to discriminate between fact and opinion.
Art Greeth
70   Posted 03/04/2008 at 20:56:24

Report abuse

Tom Hughes? hello Tom. Long time no speak. I agree with you 100% that there are ?literally hundreds of defamatory threads and remarks against KW and others on all (sic ? Everton) forums?. Good of you to acknowledge that, as opposed to others who clearly do not consider this to be the case. I further agree with you that the club/KW in all likelihood DO see ? KEIOC as the enemy?s flagship? and that is why the site has been targeted. As I wrote in an earlier post, it is possibly a shot across the bows, a warning, that the club/KW will no longer remain indifferent to some of the more outrageous comments Everton-related websites are currently allowing. Sites other than KEIOC would perhaps do well to take this on board.

How coincidental is it that the action ?also coincides with the arrival in town of Tesco?s main fixer? I honestly have no idea. Nor do you, but feel free to speculate on it. But such speculation does not make your opinion concrete fact.

I agree that an internet forum is a wonderful platform for airing your views ? and I?m grateful for it. I LOVE the competing anarchy and democracy such forums offer. However, as I continue to say, whilst I am a ferocious defender of freedom of speech, it does come with personal responsibility. You have to be prepared to face the consequences of your words.

Now if I may, I will link that in to Neil Adderley?s response: ?Correct me if I?m wrong but I am sure that the KEIOC forum, as all forums should, including TW?s own has a ?disclaimer? or ?conditions of use.? Correct Neil, but that does not absolve absolutely those responsible for the site if ANY content can be construed as defamatory or libellous. I agree, ?if Keith Wyness is looking to shut down [don?t agree with this per se] Everton forums on the grounds of "highly defamatory" comments made against his good self then he is going to be a very busy man?. But maybe the strategy is, as already mentioned, to target one to warn the rest.

KEIOC is not completely innocent as you are trying to portray Neil. I can?t find them myself, but did they not produce flyers/leaflets for home games at the start of the season that ? with pictures and shock headlines ? spoke of ?lies, deceit, farce? against officers of the club? I recall that rather than rally support to their cause, they actually only served to alienate many for the tactic. Correct me if I?m wrong.

I am all for people continuing to lobby for what they believe in and that questions continue to be asked. I repeat, my original point in response to Christine was and remains defence of free speech and applying that equally both ways? with the associated responsibility that should come with it. Nothing more, nothing less.
Art Greeth
71   Posted 03/04/2008 at 20:57:28

Report abuse

Ed Fitgerald - Michael Kenrick has I believed answered your point (there?s possibly a first for me on TW ? agreeing with MK!!). Like Michael, I do not see your point. The criteria for eligibility was public knowledge. The club consciously constantly reminded eligible voters to contact them if they had not received their voting pack. If eligible voters did not do so, then? that?s THEIR failing, not the club?s. The implication of your post is that the ?disenfranchised? that you imagine were deliberately targeted NOT to receive a voting pack would have naturally sided with the ?no? and the final result would have been radically different.

Such thinking is flawed on so many levels that it can not be taken seriously. Sorry Ed. It requires you to believe that:
1) the club DID indeed deliberately (maliciously..?) deny qualified supporters the vote
2) that the club did so because it knew such disenfranchised supporters were intending to vote ?no?.
It begs the very obvious questions: just how the hell could the club definitively know who NOT to allow the vote? BK and KW have been called many things ? the core reason for this very thread ? but I don?t think their control extends to some oppressive Orwellian, all-seeing, all-knowing world you are implying here.

Ciarán McGlone ? having studied the legal niceties of defamation and libel (albeit more years ago than I care to remember...) I feel fairly confident I have a reasonable grasp of its concept. And as Tony Williams has pointed out, your ?honestly held belief? about Wyness can indeed be shown to be defamation if challenged in a court of law and you cannot substantiate your ?belief?. Based on your (flawed) logic and understanding of defamation, anyone, for example, can have an ?honestly held belief? and describe another as a kiddy fiddler and not face any consequences for such a ?belief?.

You are very, VERY wrong if you think you can ?sidestep? a charge of defamation simply by prefacing any comment by ?but? it?s my honestly held belief.? Simple.
Neil Adderley
72   Posted 03/04/2008 at 21:29:53

Report abuse

Art - I have no doubt that your bluff and bluster should be applauded but the fact is that the legal threat was not aimed at any Everton fora (cheers Art) but specifically at "material" contained within articles on the KEIOC website.

Now, unless you have access to the actual correspondence that highlights the "material" considered by Keith Wyness to be defamatory, some of which has been apparently been removed and some not, then your statement that "outrageous claims HAVE been posted on KEIOC?s website" is again based on assumption and possibly speculation.

Also Art - you seem to have missed or ignored my query regarding the Malcolm Carter quote on the TW home page.Given your experience in the field of law, your objective opinion would be appreciated;

You will have no doubt noticed that Malcolm Carter (Bestway) has publically stated that;

"I was... stone-walled... by Everton[?s] Directors and to make things worse most all that was said publicly regarding the Bestway site by Everton... or it?s representatives was so inaccurate that so often it genuinely beggared belief and surprised me.?

Should Malcolm Carter now expect a legal threat from Keith Wyness and Everton FC and if that legal threat is not forthcoming, does that make it clear that Everton treated Carter and his team and the company in a shameful manner?
Greg Murphy
73   Posted 03/04/2008 at 21:57:38

Report abuse

Getting back to the fact that Wyness didn’t trot out the 75,000 figure either before or during the ballot especially when the Loop proposal first emerged:

You have to wonder why it took him three months to bring that figure in from left field and why he only did so once HOK had given a clear indication that there was indeed viability to house a 50,000 stadium on a site he’d hitherto dismissed as too small?

Perhaps he didn’t feel there was any need to reveal a 75,000 ambition prior to the ballot? Possibly so.

Perhaps he was too dismissive of the Loop proposal when it first emerged and didn’t wish to comment any further on it lest he unwittingly lend it too much credibility? Maybe.

Or perhaps he did, three months later, pluck the 75,000 figure from out of thin air in order to shift the goalposts? Possibly so.

But the fact is, he did only reveal that figure very late in the day and very, very post-ballot.

It smacked of a little desperation and panic in my opinion (to what degree I can’t say). And it sent a signal to me, at least, that here was a man who wasn’t exactly confident in his own plans.

Similarly, I view the threat of legal action against KEIOC as somewhat desperate. Whilst I agree with Art that he’s probably got some (very limited and quite technical justification) for doing so it doesn’t suggest that he’s got consummate faith that he’s gonna pull Kirkby off.

For if I was Wyness and I was convinced that Kirkby was gonna happen no matter what, I’d just let KEIOC shout and stamp all they want and treat their rhetoric as water off a duck’s back.

A justified threat? Perhaps. A petulant one? Definitely.

The irony is that I’ve probably got more confidence than Wyness that Kirkby is gonna happen.

Sadly I don’t agree with an increasing number of people who believe that Kirkby is all but dead in the water and I’m convinced and filled with dreaded fear that the Blues will ultimately end up there. Hope not.

Maybe Wyness is too close to the project right now and can’t see the wood for the trees - but he doesn’t strike me as being supremely confident of all he surveys.

Whatever the rights and wrongs and justifications of the legal threat, it would be better if the Blues announced quickly that the matter has been resolved and moved on swiftly from a PR own goal.

A mucky little affair and no mistake.

Karl Masters
74   Posted 03/04/2008 at 22:25:59

Report abuse

A depressing topic this one for me.

A couple of things I’d like to add though. Firstly, a good friend of mine is a journalist on a National paper and gets to cover Everton quite frequently. I hadn’t seen him for a while until recently and while we were talkng he told me how he senses a real change in atmosphere behind the scenes at Everton when he visits. Gone is a lot of the friendliness and openness and it has been replaced my a more hard nosed cynical atmosphere. He described some of the Club’s employees as behaving like Mafia members. Whilst this is only an opinion, he is not an Evertonian, has no particular bias for or against the Club and I don’t doubt what he says. He said that the Peoples Club motto was utter nonsense too. We loved Moyesie for saying what he did, but it was seized upon by BK and cynically exploited to the point some Evertonians actually believe it!

It seems to show that there is something in claims the Club is far more ruthless and disrespectful to us Fans. This week’s revelations about Wyness and KEIOC only seem to reinforce that.

Secondly, the answer to this mess and the mess over the Park is becoming clearer and it’s a shared Stadium. Leaving aside all our beliefs its ridiculous for a provincial city of circa 500k inhabitants to expect to enjoy 2 of Europe’s finest stadia and finest Clubs. Liverpool is not Milan or London. That’s good in many ways, but it also means both clubs should pool their resources, not least because it will encourage public money to be invested in a facility that could then be genuinely world class and not just a pipedream. Everyone on Merseyside should start to seriously consider it if they want 2 things - a world cass stadium and manageable debt. All the other options will leave both Clubs with either a second rate stadium ( us ) or ridiculous debts that will inhibit not only teambuilding but possibly the future of the club ( them and maybe us too as Kirkby’s seemingly is not going to be the Deal of The Century ).

Who is going to be brave enough to admit it or will all the petty jealousies and tribalism ruin it fo both clubs?!
Art Greeth
75   Posted 03/04/2008 at 23:16:11

Report abuse

Neil - I don’t quite understand why my studied, polite and concise replies to posts directed at me should be labelled by you as "bluff and bluster", unless it is a vain attempt by you to ridicule and undermine my point of view without actually addressing it. So be it. Your choice.

As far as I see it Neil, your are basically arguing semantics. I quote verbatim the KEIOC open letter:

?Let the officers and committee of KEIOC make it perfectly clear, we do not endorse those personal attacks on you that can be found on many fan-based forums and let us assure you that articles submitted to KEIOC that contain offensive personal observations are either rejected or edited as a matter of policy. We do however reserve the right to highlight inadequacies and publish constructive criticism surrounding the club?s business performance and all activities relating to the proposed relocation to Kirkby, for which you as CEO are responsible.

?Your solicitors indicate that ?Everton and Mr Wyness complain that the references, when read in the context of the articles as a whole, are defamatory of them in that they allege that Everton and Mr Wyness have dishonestly deceived and shamefully bullied fans with respect to the relocation of Everton?s stadium.? We have reviewed our site?s contents and have edited any content that appears ambiguous, however we won?t have phrases such as ?dishonestly deceived? and ?shamefully bullied? attributed to our campaign, these are your words not ours.?

They refer to ?articles?, you refer to ?material?, I refer to neither. I refer to claims being posted on KEIOC that I consider outrageous. Specifically, character assassination of officers connected to EFC. This is not ?assumption and speculation? as you attribute to me. I have seen such posts ? please note the word again ? POSTS ? with my own eyes. At no time in this thread have I made any claim to know WHICH articles/materials EFC/KW is protesting about. At no time in this thread have I endorsed or applauded KW?s action on this matter. I have consistently defended freedom of speech. I have consistently endorsed the right of others to protest, even though I myself do not agree with KEIOC?S position. I respect their right to express their beliefs ? with responsibility for their words and their consequences. Nothing more, nothing less.

Finally, as for ?missing or ignoring? your query regarding Malcolm Carter, I ignored it because I chose to. I had more than enough to respond to! Now you may think otherwise, but for me it is unrelated and off-topic from what concerns me in this thread. That is my right, I am under no obligation to respond to you because YOU think you are making some relevant correlation by saying ?Malcolm Carter can now expect a legal threat from Keith Wyness?. For me, Neil, you are indulging in not very subtle sophistry and as such, to me, it is? irrelevant.

Oh! And just to pick up on Greg Murphy’s latest post. Indeed, a mucky little affair and one, as I said yesterday in this thread, that saddens me. The club’s PR from pre to post ballot on this issue has been somewhere between hapless and appalling.
Tom Hughes
76   Posted 03/04/2008 at 22:00:31

Report abuse

Art,
Let me start by saying people should be aware that this is a sideshow..... a complete distraction and of no relevance to the future of Everton FC, nor the merits of the move or any other option.(ie. the real issues, and is it any wonder!?)

You’re right, I should have, as intended carefully placed quotes around the word "defamatory". My understanding of the word, admittedly not from any legal angle is that it is only such if the remarks are unfounded. A spade is a spade afterall.

As far as I’m aware he hasn’t entirely acknowledged the inaccuracy of his pre-vote statements that underpinned the whole pro-Kirkby stance, or more importantly the consequences of these. Judge for yourself...... How would you assess everything that was stated as categorical fact during the ballot?:

"Stadium for practically nothing" (No-one is saying this now? Not Tesco? Not EFC?)

"Redevelopment is non-deliverable" (entirely dependent on the final cost of Kirkby, which it would seem is no longer buttons),

"The Loop cannot hold 50,000" (oh yes it can: HOK),

after a rethink: "The Loop is unsuitable since we now need 75,000 capacity" (when according to the consultants there has only ever been an analysis for 50,000 at Kirkby, and even that doesn’t look great IMO).

"No plan B" (see all above, or throw in a WHP for good measure?),

"Most accessible stadium in the UK" (Requiring the largest park and ride scheme in the country to support a public transport capacity a fraction of that available at Walton, which evidently doesn’t need such and is therefore by definition.... superior?)........ etc.

These were the whole backbone of the Kirkby option. As far as I’m concerned given the importance of this whole issue KW staked his professional reputation on these. This was Everton’s CEO directly reassuring us with the cold hard facts..... Given the content and intentionally authoritative nature of those statements, the systematic strategy in which they were released to counter and stifle any alternative view before it could gain interest, surely means that if any of the previously acclaimed facts are found to have always been invalid, then we can only conclude that the fans were directly misled?

If that was the case, as far as I’m concerned the misleading of thousands of Evertonians and the future of Everton FC is far more serious and important than the "de-faming" of any individual, within the context of the stadium issue alone of course. What do you think?
Neil Adderley
77   Posted 03/04/2008 at 23:54:55

Report abuse

Art - When you mentioned you had experience of the law I never imagined you were referring to being THE Devil’s advocate - Oh! You may also choose to ignore this post.
Jay Harris
78   Posted 04/04/2008 at 00:42:56

Report abuse

Art
I do feel sorry for the buffetting you?re taking on here and I respect that you?re responding so well. But even you must now be thinking you cant defend the indefensible.

For teh record, I AM NOT A MEMBER OF KEIOC but I do share a number of their concerns. I have been supporting EFC since 1958 as a 7-year-old and my family since 1910. I have also served on a number of Boards of Directors and project managed a number of multimillion pound developments. Therefore I feel reasonably qualified to say I have never seen so much utter bullshit and incompetence from a board of directors as the "Magician" and his sidekick "Big bonus".

Putting all the objective evidence aside I will state categorically that no one in their right mind would trust this board to deliver a successful new stadium in a good location for the good of EFC.

THAT IS OPINION WHICH MAY WELL BE FACTUAL!!

Put that in the legal system and see if Bully boy wants to take me on.

Gavin Ramejkis
79   Posted 04/04/2008 at 07:01:04

Report abuse

Art it’s not a personal attack but can I put this one to you - in the news this week BT have been lambasted for monitoring thousands of their customers’ internet habits and activities. The BT spokesperson appeared on national television saying they had constantly sought internal and external legal advice and were advised rightly or wrongly that they could continue the practice. Now several legal bodies are considering the legal validity of BT’s actions and subsequent action against them.

Given KW has little or no legal background whatsoever and he will clearly have taken legal advice on what to do about KEIOC is it beyond the realms of possibility that his legal advice is flawed too? After all legal decisions are often made after considerable conjecture and consideration of interpretation of evidence rather than black and white right and wrong.
Christine Foster
80   Posted 04/04/2008 at 09:18:08

Report abuse

First of all, my apologies for the length of this post; for some reason it failed to list so I have split and re- submitted. I had to think long and hard about this posting, because I wanted the article to voice concern over the club?s stance with respect to its threat of defamation against KEIOC. There have been some excellent responses, both in support of the piece and strongly opposing my views. . For the record, I am not, never have been, associated with KEIOC. I believe in the principle of what they are trying to do. So I am not impartial, I have a view.

I agree that many posts could be best described as inflammatory, slanderous or defaming individuals. However that doesn?t mean that all those posting such comments are wrong in the content, merely in the way they have stated a view. An opinion: That?s what Forums do. That?s the whole point. Some express their views eloquently, others say it the way they see it. But I agree its not a carte blanche for outrageous content.

However, I believe this threat by the club is almost a diversion from the real issue that is at stake. One has to ask, ?Why now? The articles and the Forums have been at the club to co-operate for a year now without any joy and certainly many comments could well have been taken exception to before now. It?s two close to the bone for both parties to take anymore so hit first, hit hard and divide the opposition. Wyness has probably read ?The art of War? but probably only got to the end of the first chapter having learnt all he wanted to know.

I am inclined therefore to believe this is a ploy by the club to stifle opposition to their chosen location. Nothing in the posts submitted so far have changed my view on this.
Christine Foster
81   Posted 04/04/2008 at 09:23:31

Report abuse

Part two of post:
I turn my attention to Credibility. The vote was clear in its intent and clear in its decision. But the premise on which the vote was carried has long since fallen into disrepute. The burying of the Loop, WHP, These were both done prior to the vote being cast. Those eligble voters trusted the board when they promoted the Kirkby site as the only option.
In unravelling the facts it is clear that trust was sadly misplaced.

Someone (all?) on the board of Directors of EFC knew this prior to the vote and elected not to inform the voters. That was an error of judgement, possibly misleading at best. One can only contest therefore that the premise of the vote for Kirkby as the only viable option was blatantly unsound as those voting were clearly not informed of all the facts and options. They trusted the board.

But wait a moment, lets assume that the board were informed of the existence of other options but in their opinion were not viable or politically (commercially) as beneficial to the club and therefore elected to ignore them. If that was the case then stating that Kirkby was the only option was untrue. But then of course the ball of wool unravels and we find that actually there were options, the board did know and chose not to inform people of them. The board now is in a very difficult position. The foundation of the Yes vote is undermined and the club has little option but to review the situation and open it up.

In this game of Monopoly, I can?t help think that in a way the boards get out of jail card will be the failure to get planning permission for Kirkby. The board could then take the high ground and open the process up again. That?s business.
Ciarán McGlone
82   Posted 04/04/2008 at 09:34:38

Report abuse

Art,

I’m surprised you’ve had to take ’more years than you care to remember’ to study defamation...as straightforward libel cases are hardly a difficult area of law...

Ignoring the context of this particular situtation may be convenient for your argument, but it hardly makes it right, neither does your erroneous suggstion that my logic is flawed.

Firstly, if you trawl through the web, you’ll find hundreds, possibly thousands of similar accusations against Wyness. The fact that he has only choosen this one, at this point, would stand agaisnt him in court...The ’enough is enough’ scenario which your (flawed) logic has suggested as the reasoning for his attack on KEIOC doesnt work in libel. Its also arguable that the extent of existing opinion that is exactly similar to KEIOC’s would negate the suggestion that it was lowering other peoples opinion of him.

Secondly, the information in the public domain at the moment is that Wyness quite clearly gave varying accounts of the stadium plans, costs and advantages to the fans via various media outlets..this cannot be disputed. It is also common knowledge that he will recieve a hefty bonus if we move to Kirkby.

Now if someone chooses to take these two factual pieces of information and conflate them into an opinion that he has muddied the waters to achieve a yes vote and that he is a ’money grabbing fucker’ then that is fair comment.


P.S Your analogy with ’kiddie fiddling’ was absolute rubbish, and i would suggest that if you want to use analogies please use ones that a similar in both context and content....solecisms in your analogies convince no-one.

Art Greeth
83   Posted 04/04/2008 at 09:32:05

Report abuse

Tom Hughes? quite agree. Public forums and debates such as these, whilst valuable, are little more than a side show. Virtual pubs, if you like, but they do provide some kind of social service. As is this squabble between the club and KEIOC on ?defamation?.

I don?t dispute your list of quotes attributed to KW. I don?t dispute people?s right to challenge them. It is for each individual to take them at face value or not, to interpret them as being ?directly misleading? or not.

Whether this constitutes malicious manipulation by EFC and KW, or poor competence and hapless PR by them, I?m not sure. What I am sure about is the more outrageous, personal attacks against the club and its officers in this whole debate do NOT advance the debate or give credence to people?s opposition to the club?s plans.

Using more measured, less emotive language and presenting cold, hard, indisputable facts or deliverable alternatives ? as I am aware some in the anti-Kirkby camp are trying to do ? and people?s opinions can be swayed. As it is, too much angry rhetoric, IMO, only serves to antagonise and alienate those who may be converted by intelligent argument.

Neil Addersley ? my only experience of studying law was as a journalist student many years ago. I have made no grandiose claims for myself beyond this. Can I further say, Neil, that I have not ignored a single post of yours, that I have replied fully and with courtesy to you. You, by contrast, have now posted a couple of snide and sneering messages which I consider unmerited on our exchanges. I notice you have taken to the ad hominem argument ? attacking me, instead of refuting my arguments ? which, curiously, was the basis of Christine?s original post at the head of this thread. So be it. That is your right. However, I consider it says a lot more about you than it does about me.

Jay Harris ? please, don?t feel sorry for me. I don?t consider I am getting a ?buffeting? on here at all. I enjoy the to and fro. I understand the emotions that ride on the stadium debate and ? as I have CONSISTENTLY done ? I do not disparage people?s point of view based solely on which camp they stand in, although I might challenge and refute their arguments.

Like you, my family and I also have a long pedigree as Everton supporters ? you and I are of a similar age. As for your observations, well? as you state, it is YOUR opinion, which you are fully entitled to. But? that is all it is. Your opinion. Your bald statement is unsubstantiated and will not convince floating voters to side with you. What is possibly cathartic for you lacks clarity for more discerning others who want to see something more than bland and trite personal attacks on EFC and its officers. Sorry.

Gavin Ramejkis, your point being?? Even a layman knows that the law and lawyers will argue for which ever side it is representing. You are not being insightful here, you are being naïve. To quote my favourite lawyer joke: Heard about the lawyer who was walking in the countryside and stood in a cow pat? He looked down at his shit-covered shoe and said: ?Ugh! I?m melting!?

Feel free to substitute KW?s name for lawyer if you are so inclined?
Ciarán McGlone
84   Posted 04/04/2008 at 10:31:24

Report abuse

"Whether this constitutes malicious manipulation by EFC and KW, or poor competence and hapless PR by them, I?m not sure."



I’m glad you’ve come to the cogently obvious conclusion that it may not be defamation. Perhaps KW’s solicitors will soon realise this and drop this stupid and devisive litigation.... because to be honest he’s only serving to heighten the opinion that he is a turd.
Art Greeth
85   Posted 04/04/2008 at 10:23:16

Report abuse

Ciarán McGlone ? you have (consciously or deliberately) misread or misunderstood my post when you say: ?I?m surprised you?ve had to take ?more years than you care to remember? to study defamation...as straightforward libel cases are hardly a difficult area of law.?

I actually said ?more years AGO than I care to remember...? The word ?ago? is a small, but important omission. Covered the subject in a day or two, if I remember rightly, so that blows right out of the water your implication that: 1) I?m telling porkies, 2) I?m a slow learner.

Do I dispute your (correct) claim that ?if you trawl through the web, you?ll find hundreds, possibly thousands of similar accusations against Wyness?? No. Do I endorse KW?s actions? No. The fact ? your choice of words ? that ?he has only chosen the KEIOC site? to go after would NOT stand against him in court. It is common practice in defamation and libel cases to possibly use one (publication, website, what ever...) as a test case and establish due cause rather than issuing multiple writs initially. In the wake of a successful claim, other writs may then follow if established defamatory material continues to be published.

You then confuse public statements attributed to Wyness with the defamation issue. You cannot make the leap from his public statements, which can quite be legitimately challenged, to defamaing him by calling him a ?lying, bulling, thieving twat?, IMO. You add it is also common knowledge that he will recieve a hefty bonus if we move to Kirkby. Give me hard evidence of this please. Based on everything I know, it is an assumption, not an indisputable fact.

Having shown your premises ARE flawed, your conclusion ? ?Now if someone chooses to take these two factual pieces of information (you cannot categorically say you HAVE established ?the facts? - Art) and conflate them into an opinion that he has muddied the waters to achieve a yes vote and that he is a ?money grabbing fucker? then that is fair comment? ? cannot logically follow.

As for my analogy with ?kiddie fiddling?, it is not ?absolute rubbish?. It is legitimate. Your defence, however ? ?if you want to use analogies please use ones that a similar in both context and content? ? IS absolute rubbish. Your earlier post clearly argued that if you prefaced a statement with the statement ?it is my honestly held belief?? you could ?sidestep? (again, your words) charges of defamation. Either such a belief can be universally applied when expressing an ?honestly held belief? about another, or not. I deliberately chose an extreme example to highlight the fallacy of your very erroneous thinking.
Tom Hughes
86   Posted 04/04/2008 at 10:23:39

Report abuse

Art,
The "side show" I was referring to was the "defamation" charade.

The real, and by far the most important issue (that this is designed to detract from) is the whole stadium debacle.

The fact that no-one is able, or willing to dispute the fundamentally flawed nature of KW’s assertions sold to the fans as gospel says it all really!!! The invalidation of just one of these "vote winners" should be a major cause for concern for all Evertonians far greater than any bad-mouthing of KW. Each in their own right is a potential show-stopper. The prospect that several, or all were intended to mislead or were just plain incorrect would bring into question the credibility of KW, the vote and indeed the Kirkby project in general.

Ciarán McGlone
87   Posted 04/04/2008 at 11:04:19

Report abuse

Firstly, I apologise for misquoting you...you were indeed correct, I did misread it...perhaps I assumed that someone who was trying to allude to being so knowledgeable on the topic would have more than a two day journo course in the distant past.

Firstly, it is not common practice in defamation to ignore previous accusations and then subsequently pursue the publishers of the same allegation at a later date. This is fabrication or confusion on your part. If a litigant ignored initial accusations then subsequently pursued the same accusations in another publication then this is NOT the same as using a single publisher as a test case. You are conflating two issues here....single test cases and repetition.

Wyness has been clouding the issues for over a year, and people have been calling him a bullshitter for over a year. For you to suggest that this is merely a test case rather than a reactionary litigation based on the nature of those concerned is absolute codswallop!

Art, let me explain something to you (or should that be repeat!), public information IS VITAL in a libel litigation such as this, and the public information that this would concern is the statements made by wyness. Suggesting that Wyness’s statements have nothing to do with the defamation and the possible justiciability emanating from that.... is quite frankly bizzarre!

My point about ’honesty held belief was prefaced with a quite apparent reference to the context of the situation..(which you choose to ignore)

Suggesting that someone is a ’kiddie fiddler’ has no context or surrounding circumstance..if you think it’s valid to compare two differential situations as the reasomning for a dismissal of my ’honestly held belief’ scenario without exploring context...you i’d suggest that you didn’t really understand my point.



p.s Art, here’s a little tip....just because you say you’ve shown something to be flawed, doesn’t necessarily mean you actually have...in this case all you’ve shown is a journalists understanding of the law.
Art Greeth
88   Posted 04/04/2008 at 11:47:03

Report abuse

Ciarán McGlone, apology accepted. Snide, sneering comments laughed off. I repeat again, I have made no grandiose claims for myself as being ?so knowledgeable on the topic? (of defamation law).

As I understand it, there is not a ?time limit? on when a person may or may not pursue litigation with regard to considered defamatory material, as you now seem to be implying. Neither you nor I or anyone contributing to this thread can categorically state just WHY KW and EFC are taking this action at this time. We can speculate ? as many have done ? so possibly it is a test case, possibly it is a reactionary litigation. Maybe all of us are talking ?absolute codswallop?. I make no claims for myself that I am the exclusive harbinger of truth. Do you? I am expressing an opinion, which I believe I have a right to express and which I further accept can be challenged, but? I haven?t yet seen my core argument refuted or undermined by you or anyone.

Furthermore, of course public information is vital in a libel litigation and I am well aware that the onus falls as much ? if not more ? on the litigant to prove that they have been defamed, rather than the perpetuator of the defamation. I have NOT suggested as you state ?that Wyness?s statements have nothing to do with the defamation? AT ALL! I quote myself again:

?You cannot make the leap from his public statements, WHICH CAN QUITE BE LEGITIMATELY CHALLENGED (my caps ? Art), to defaming him by calling him a ?lying, bullying, thieving twat?, IMO?. If I am guilty of anything here is that I didn?t clarify the second clause by adding WITHOUT PROOF.

As for your statement ?just because you say you?ve shown something to be flawed, doesn?t necessarily mean you actually have?, I would agree with you if a person failed to present just reasons or failed to expose the premises of another?s argument. I believe I have done that in your case. I?m happy to leave it to others to judge whether I have done so effectively or not.

Finally, as much at it clearly offends you, my ?kiddie fiddler? example remains valid. My very point on your ?honestly held belief? scenario I addressed several points ago. You now link it ?without exploring context?. I said as much, I believe, when saying unless you can substantiate such a charge, it is defamation of character. I repeat, either your ?honestly held belief? MUST be applied universally in whatever situation, or? it is invalid.
Ciarán McGlone
89   Posted 04/04/2008 at 12:46:47

Report abuse

Simply dismissing my logic as flawed, is supposition amounting to proclaiming yourself ’so knowledgeable on the topic’...or at least more knowledgeable than me...if this was not your intention, it was certainly your result.


Again you are not understanding what i posted, I didn’t say there was a time limit on bringing litigation for defamation (there is, but that is irrelevant)..What i stated was that to ignore previous publications of the same material and then at a later date to pursue that same material published by someone else is not held in favour by the courts..As you’ve already acknowledged these claims are nothing new!

So therefore bringing a case on this repeated material would be grounds enough for it to be ill-considered.

Secondly, you have not seen the core of your argument refuted because you’ve ignored or confused all my points.

You make the strange comment that you ’cannot make the leap from Wyness’s public statements to calling him a liar’ etc. I don’t know how youre coming to this conclusion, but if his public statements are conflicting then its NOT a leap to say that the statements are contradictory and misleading..that is fact.

In an above post you produced the following:

"Whether this constitutes malicious manipulation by EFC and KW, or poor competence and hapless PR by them, I?m not sure"

If youre not sure if they’re malicious manipulation or hapless PR, then is it not logical and fair comment for someone else to validly conclude the former?

Surely you stand by youre own comments?

p.s I was not being snide or sneering, perhaps I have the same opinion of journalists as you have of lawyers....after all, you have again ignored my contextual caveat on the ’honestly held opinion’....a caveat which was clearly expressed in my very first post on this topic....don’t let that get in the way of erroneous tautology though!
Neil Adderley
90   Posted 04/04/2008 at 12:41:10

Report abuse

Hello Art - "Can I further say, Neil, that I have not ignored a single post of yours, that I have replied fully and with courtesy to you."

"Finally, as for ?missing or ignoring? your query regarding Malcolm Carter, I ignored it because I chose to. I had more than enough to respond to! Now you may think otherwise, but for me it is unrelated and off-topic from what concerns me in this thread. That is my right, I am under no obligation to respond to you because YOU think you are making some relevant correlation by saying ?Malcolm Carter can now expect a legal threat from Keith Wyness?. For me, Neil, you are indulging in not very subtle sophistry and as such, to me, it is? irrelevant."

I considered my query regarding the recent quote from Malcolm Carter concerning the treatment he recieved from the Everton board of directors to be very much on topic;

Taken fro the KEIOC website; (comments section)

"In the (same) solicitors letter it indicates that "shameful treatment" of the Bestway executive, (within the WHP article on the KEIOC website) is defamatory towards Everton Football Club, our advice is that it isn’t as we can substantiate this observation with email evidence and witnesses, therefore it has not been removed along with other statements. Once again we can catagorically state that to our knowledge there are no defamatory remarks on our website, the opinion of a solicitor is just that, an opinion. Hope this explanation clears up your confusion."

So, my valid query regarding Malcolm Carter stands Art.

Also of interest from the comments section on the KEIOC website is this insight into the "material" considered "defamatory" by solicitors on behalf of Keith Wyness;

"Keith Wyness has complained that an article submitted by a fan descibed him as a "shameless chancer" we consider this to be a fair request and have removed that phrase from the article. We would have given the same consideration to a phone call or email."

It seems clear that wild speculation referring to "Specifically, character assassination of officers connected to EFC" was in fact just that.

Oh! Accusing someone of ’sophistry’ in an attempt to deliberately invalidate a straight question is sharp stuff, Art. (That is a compliment by the way)
Chris McGlynn
91   Posted 04/04/2008 at 12:57:04

Report abuse

Christine, Art, Tom, first of all, I have enjoyed your arguments on this thread. Good to see a bit of well reasoned and good natured debate on here despite the emotive nature of the subject matter.

Art - I’m moving away from the defamation theme here (which as Tom points out, is a bit of a sideshow). Now, I don’t buy into the conspiracy and fraud theories regarding the board but my initial faith in their actions has suffered from their representations and conduct over the stadium issues. Regarding the points Jay Harris raises as FACTS (which I consider to be a blend of fact and opinion) do you feel comfortable putting all these down to bad PR, management and incompetence rather than deliberate misrepresentation and, either way, would you be willing to put your faith in such a board on such an important decision?
harry charles
92   Posted 04/04/2008 at 14:10:28

Report abuse

[Bill Kenright in a corner] the fact is bill is in a cornered,his board consits of three men who wish to make a killing ,all hell bent on going to Kirkby,he knows in his heart that he and the vast majoirity of supporters wish to stay in or as close to Goodison Park as possible.The FACT is that Stanley Park IS FOR ALL PEOPLE OF LIVERPOOL,AND NOT FOR ONE TEAM,and also for all people who dont support football , be it blue or red ,this is Unequal Rghts,and should be taken to the highest courts possible.
Art Greeth
93   Posted 04/04/2008 at 14:02:51

Report abuse

Ciarán McGlone, I have NOT ?Simply dismissed your logic as flawed?. I believe I have methodically shown the premises of some your arguments to be incorrect, therefore it logically follows that conclusions your draw from said premises are indeed flawed. I made it very clear that I am happy for others to judge whether I have been successful on that or not. It therefore is NOT ?supposition amounting to proclaiming yourself ... more knowledgeable than me? as you charge me with. At no stage have I even thought that, let alone wrote it.

I repeat, my core argument has not been refuted by you, not because I have ?ignored or confused all my points?. You have actually raised other points, which I have tried to address. I stand by what you consider a ?strange comment? with regards to Wyness?s public statements and the leap some make to defamatory statements. Now here you tie this in to the ?liar? charge. You have clearly stated it is your ?honestly held belief? that he is a ?money-grabbing bullshitter?. In support of this, you state ?it is common knowledge that he will receive a hefty bonus if we move to Kirkby?.

I ask you again to provide supporting evidence of whether this ?knowledge? is fact or supposition. I put to you now IF you can offer such proof, assuming it would be in the form of a mutually agreed and legally drawn up document between possibly the club and KW himself, whether you can continue to label him ?thieving? and ?money-grabbing? when it is nothing more or less than what he is legally entitled to.

Now this is all hypothetical or speculative ? as is your original ?commonly held knowledge? allegation. Yes ? some WOULD consider him a ?money grabber?? but thieving, when he has a mutally agreed document?? You can?t, as much as you may think it on whatever grounds you wish.

As for my comment "Whether this constitutes malicious manipulation by EFC and KW, or poor competence and hapless PR by them, I?m not sure" and your ?If you?re not sure if they?re malicious manipulation or hapless PR, then is it not logical and fair comment for someone else to validly conclude the former?? Of COURSE someone else can conclude differently from me. However, whether it is VALID and whether it legitimises defaming club officers? that?s another question, Ciarán

Finally, I?ll stand by my comment that you have, unfortunately, made some snide or sneering comments. Not arsed meself. I am also happy how I made the point re: your ?honestly held opinion? and I?m not going to belabour it again now, other than refute your charge of ?erroneous tautology? in relation to it.
Art Greeth
94   Posted 04/04/2008 at 14:35:15

Report abuse

Neil, quite clearly I have responded to each and every post you have addressed to me. I quite clearly gave you reasons as to why I did not respond to one particular topic. You accept that as my right or not. Cheers now.
Art Greeth
95   Posted 04/04/2008 at 14:41:32

Report abuse

Chris McGlynn ? good question, Chris. I don?t buy into the more outlandish conspiracy and fraud theories regarding the board either, but I can understand why some people?s faith in them has suffered as your?s evidently has.

For somebody who works and lives in the field of theatre AND the media savvy world of PL football, I am surprised that BK, for example, has not appointed a PR guru to direct ? maybe even front ? the whole stadium debate. So many gaffs could then have been avoided and the whole process made even more inclusive (beyond the original ballot) to the Everton family.

Am I willing to put my faith in such a board on such an important decision? I have to answer ?yes?, if only because it is beyond me personally to change things . Call me naïve, trusting, sycophantic, blind ? whatever. But ultimately I cannot believe that BK would allow the club to go down the tube for personal gain.

Am I too trusting and gullible of my fellow man??!! INCOMING!!!!!!!!!!
Ciarán McGlone
96   Posted 04/04/2008 at 14:40:34

Report abuse

I?ll keep this short to avoid the repetition of the same points again... as youre struggling to accept what I post.

your intial post was this..

Based on your (flawed) logic and understanding of defamation, anyone, for example, can have an ?honestly held belief? and describe another as a kiddy fiddler and not face any consequences for such a ?belief?.


Firstly, I never actually said that honestly held belief could stand alone without qualification... i?ve repeated that several times now, as well as making it an obvious caveat of the initial post!!!!!how long are you going to ignore this fact?

I?m also happy to let others decide whether the above amounts to a dismissal, and ill let others decide whether a honestly held belief with reasoning is the same as your ?kiddie fidler? analogy with absolutely no qualifiaction or reasoning...

I certainly know what i think and I also know what the law says.


p.s you again show your ignorance of the defamation laws by asking me for factual qualification that Bully will recieve a bonus...common knowledge is not fact, and a statement can be contrary to fact and still not be defamation.

p.s Money grabbing is a hell of a long way from thieving!
Art Greeth
97   Posted 04/04/2008 at 15:50:00

Report abuse

Ciarán, I?ve looked and looked and looked and I simply do not see what you describe as your ?obvious caveat? in any of your posts, let alone your initial post. Therefore, how can I ignore a ?fact? that is not present?

Repeating the kiddy fiddler thing again, if you stepped back a little bit, we are saying the same thing: you cannot make such allegations without facing possible consequences unless you have supporting proof.

I FULLY understand that you are arguing there is enough ?evidence? in the public domain to suggest your ?honestly held belief? about KW is sound. I FULLY understand ? as already mentioned ? the onus is on the litigant to prove he has been defamed. I FULLY understand that the litigant?s own actions and words can be used in the defence of the accused to justify the alleged ?defamation?. I FULLY understand (and I?m glad that you acknowledge it) that common knowledge is not fact, and that a statement can be contrary to fact and still not be defamation. Equally, the latter CAN be construed as defamation. And just because ?a hell of a lot of people hold this opinion? (your original post on the matter) it does not make it ?true? by sheer weight of numbers.
Ed Fitzgerald
98   Posted 04/04/2008 at 15:43:43

Report abuse

Chris

You say your inital faith has in the board etc has waned since the ballot? I never had faith in BK and to a lesser degree KW prior to the Kirkby move becoming public knowledge. The reason for this is a history of statements over ground moves, investments and other issues (Rooney saga for example) over a number of years.Jay calls these facts, what is indisputable is that BK did make a whole raft of statements that amouned to ....err nothing.

You call the argument in this thread reasoned? its has become an argument over semantics with Art trying to assert his intellectual prowess over a number of other people by perfoming mental and linguistic somersaults that are quite frankly laughable.

I admit I am a simple person who cannot be frankly arsed writing War and Peace to answer Art and others. Art appears to be suprised that many Blues do not trust Kenwright and shock horror have the temerity to question his integrity. The play Kenwright should produce next is Peter and the Wolf no doubt the moral of the tale would be lost on him.
Ciarán McGlone
99   Posted 04/04/2008 at 16:12:41

Report abuse

I don’t need to stand back, youv’e made the comparison and I certainly don’t agree with it...stating that someone is a ’kiddie fiddler’ is not an honestly held belief or fair comment that is qualified...it is a statement...and it is one that alludes to extreme defamatory content as opposed to the opinion that someone is a ’money grabbing fucker’

Both of these differ even in form, one is quite clearly a statement of intent to promote fact, the other is blurred between simple opinion and categorical objectivity! They are certainly not the same, in either the courts eyes or even in semantics! And thats not even considering the relevancy of maliciousness!


In addition, my assertion was qualified with the following passage on my first post...

Wyness has muddied the water in regards to the facts of the stadium issue.... and he will also receive a huge bonus on completion of the deal.

How exactly can you miss it?

Your analogy has no such qualification!

It seems to me that you are more interested in defending Mr Wyness’s honour than actually considering his actions that have led to the current and previous incidences of condemnation.

In my opinion he’s has brought this on himself by his innability to produce a consistent and coherent argument, and evertonians are right to question his motives and methods.

It would be interesting to see this defamation against KEIOC go to court, because then we’d actually have an objective decision on whether he has bullshitted us or not, because i have no doubt that the courts would have to consider every piece of public information that Mr Wyness has imparted during this whole sorry saga!

does he feel lucky? I doubt it very much!

its been interesting Art, enjoy your weekend.

COYB
Chris McGlynn
100   Posted 04/04/2008 at 16:04:32

Report abuse

I hear where you’re coming from Art (and, to be honest, it’s not that far from where I have been for some time now), but for someone passionately defending freedom of expression (albeit with responsibility for consequences etc) and with a background in journalism, I am little surprised by the argument that:

"I have to answer ?yes?, if only because it is beyond me personally to change things".

Put it this way, it’s unlikely to be adopted as a cry by freedom fighters and defenders of civil rights across the land!

I may only have one vote in elections, one share in a company, one voice and one pen but if those in power are incompetent or misleading me, surely that is the time to campaign for change and to use all these tools (together with Christine, Tom and others seeking answers and clarity from Bully and BK) to put the house back in order.


Chris McGlynn
101   Posted 04/04/2008 at 16:37:17

Report abuse

Ed

I still have some faith in BK. I have always recognised that he gets carried away and talks bollocks sometimes (we’ll never sell Rooney etc) but I generally give him the benefit of the doubt on the basis that he’s a fan first and a business man second and as a result he often says what he’d like rather than what he can deliver. Admittedly, this is not necessarily a helpful characteristic for the chairman of a business.

However, I have lost confidence in him and the board over the stadium issues and I’m keen to see answers on a number of matters.

However, personally I believe BK wants the best for EFC and is desperate to achieve that. For him, the best for EFC is a stadium in Kirkby. I don’t doubt that he genuinely believes that’s in the club’s best interests but I would seek to challenge him as to whether it is now actually in the club’s best interests. I’d also like to make sure that he’s not become blinkered in his view that this is the best for EFC without continuing to consider other options as his initial dream seems to be floundering.

By the way, I actually like Art’s style of arguing and think he’s generally done pretty well defending his position.

Whilst it may seem that,

"Art [is] trying to assert his intellectual prowess over a number of other people by perfoming mental and linguistic somersaults"

for me, that’s part and parcel of reasoned argument. Likewise, I think others such as Tom demonstrates their intellectual ability in some of the counterarguments. It’s a sensitive issue but I’d rather read an intellectual and active debate about it than have people resorting to abuse or have only those against the board and the Kirkby move airing their views.
Art Greeth
102   Posted 04/04/2008 at 17:16:49

Report abuse

Ed, cheap shot describing me as ?perfoming mental and linguistic somersaults that are quite frankly laughable? then not qualifying your statement by saying you ?cannot be frankly arsed writing War and Peace to answer Art and others?. That?s you right. Just don?t asked to be taken seriously, in which case.

No where AT ALL have I expressed ?surprise? that as you attribute to me that ?many Blues do not trust Kenwright and shock horror have the temerity to question his integrity?. I actually clearly state the contrary, that I comprehend why people do not trust the board.

Chris, I understand your surprise at my statement (not argument) that "I have to answer ?yes?, if only because it is beyond me personally to change things". I?m being a total realist here. I left journalism many years ago. I?m no longer resident in the UK, let alone Liverpool these days, so I?m far removed from the ?front line?, and finally, I have expressed my faith in BK to deliver? so? in effect there?s nothing I wish to change.

I have no issue with those who DO wish to be ?freedom fighters and defenders of civil rights across the land?, as you put it. Believe me, I have made many, MANY a moral stand in my life which has come at a cost on many levels, but NOT at the expense of my principles.

Ciarán, I?m comfortable with the analogy I was using. Early on in our exchange I clearly said I was using an extreme example. I believe you are taking it too literally to make YOUR point.

At no time in this entire thread have I endorsed or defended KW?s ?honour? as you now charge me with. I have clearly stated I fully understand people?s attitude towards him. I have clearly stated some opinions expressed about him go to far, if one is to be even-handed in whatever moral stand one wants to take on this issue, and as such lend nothing to the debate. I have fully endorsed as you write ?Evertonians right to question his motives and methods?

As you say Ciarán, it has been interesting. Enjoy your weekend. I think we can agree on one thing to ensure that ? three points against Derby. We need it big time.
Chris McGlynn
103   Posted 04/04/2008 at 17:33:48

Report abuse

Art

Fair play to you on the freedom fighting front ? I was of course only joking and not challenging your moral integrity!

However, just one point... You said that you were willing to put your faith in the board "if only because it is beyond me personally to change things". You then explained why, realistically, you cannot change these things, being outside of the UK etc.

Whilst I understand all of these comments, why are they relevant if you are to conclude that you have faith in BK and that there?s nothing you want to change anyway?
Ed Fitzgerald
104   Posted 04/04/2008 at 16:43:25

Report abuse

In response to Art's eloquent and expansive defence of Keith Wyness ? I have garnered some of the opinions and thoughts from the net about Keith. I have steered away from "Deal of the Century" quotes etc, ? boring heard them all before ? I pass no comment on them but thought that they might be of interest to fellow blues about the undoubted integrity of our wonderful chairman.

Everton?s chief executive Keith Wyness yesterday rounded on G14 as a "dangerous group" which seeks to "polarise the game". ? as Prick Parry rightly pointed Everton are objecting because they are not part of it

Everton chief executive Keith Wyness believes the idea is one worth looking into ? on scuadmores idea for the 39th game abroad

The club launched a ballot of supporters in July 2007 on the plans ? with over 30,000 season ticket holders and members consulted. ?We?ll look at what it tells us,? Wyness says before adding: ?ultimately it?s a board decision? ? the vote as a PR exercise??

but supporting Everton says something about you. If you like, it?s a corporate social responsibility issue for a long-term benefit.? At Everton, you have to know your history ? hmmm

Well yes, we had an investor come in who has bought some shares but certainly we have not at all forced ourselves away from the fans. We still are the people?s club in many ways and we remain close to them. That?s our strength, that?s our USP compared to the big four if you like and we will always be that way. ? Apart from when you want to shut them up with a libel action

Early days at Aberdeen
Chief executive Keith Wyness
says it shows Aberdeen to be one of the driving forces in
the Scottish game. ?When I came here, one of the first
things I wanted to hear was a voice in the Board Room
representing the ordinary fan on the terracing ?
as long as you agree with me?

A little later
Wyness was forced to defend his business credentials after shareholders at the club?s 100th annual meeting questioned his abilities


At the end?
Keith Wyness, chief executive of Aberdeen Football Club stunned the soccer world by announcing that he was to leave the job - less than a week before the start of the new season. He insisted that he had been contemplating the move since last Christmas and that nobody had forced him to resign - but only a week ago he had told the local Press & Journal newspaper that he was not actively seeking to leave the club


This money is expected to be in the form of a transfer gift of land from Knowsley Council ? worth £50millon pounds - in return for a third ownership in the company that would own a run the new stadium. This is something Everton FC have constantly failed to tell their own supporters. Or that the signs have been ordered ?Welcome to Knowsley the home of Everton FC? 130 years of history wiped out at a stroke ? from
www.liverpooltimes.net ? I am sorry this is not a statement from Keith and it maybe old news but still valid perhaps??

Ian Berrington
105   Posted 04/04/2008 at 18:17:49

Report abuse

Whilst I would agree with Christine Foster’s comments that KW’s ill advised actions have offered KEIOC the moral high ground, I’m afraid that this is just a side issue to the big question - to go to Kirkby or not. Football will have many ups and downs over a one or two season period, but only a blind man can ignore trends. It is a fact (no matter how regrettable) that even with a great manager in Moyes, EFC are struggling to keep up with the ’big boys’ and that gap gets wider and wider every year. With the assumption that some mystery billionaire Evertonian is not going to come to our aid, we need a partner to help us achieve commercial success and a keystone to this is a new ground. The fact that Tesco will build this for nowt is the proverbial gifthorse. OK, maybe the Kirkby site is not ideal, but what is the alternative and please don’t metion the Bestway site or a redeveloped GP - we just haven’t got the cash. To listen to some Everton fans, anyone would think that KW and Blue Bill were in league with the devil - at least they gave us a say in the decision to move, a unique event in modern football. Anyway, just think of all the Tesco Clubcard points our Season Tickets could earn us !
Tommy Gibbons
106   Posted 04/04/2008 at 19:04:36

Report abuse

Tom (my name is Tommy not Tony actually)
I digress.. now listen boys n girls.. by the length of some of these posts some of you have far more time on your hands than what is good for you!.. I?d take up a hobby if I was you like supporting a local football club! You know, a club which has been around for a good few years and is now thinking of moving within its local geographical catchment area including its county boundaryand to a place where its theme song has very strong links. Its also a place that people outside of the area all believe to be part of its city of birth! It?ll also move to a council who actually wants it and a planning department which is not run by people with such strong affilliation to another club within its boundaries that they?ve been allowed to break a 100 year covenant to bestow favours on their favourites. Now do you get my drift?!...
Tom (again) If you read my previous post again and think logically and reasonably without blinkers I think you?ll find where I?m coming from..
Jay Harris
107   Posted 04/04/2008 at 19:29:09

Report abuse

Ian Berrington.

You?ve just said it all!! "The fact that Tesco will build this for nowt is the proverbial gifthorse." Tesco have stated categorically that they WILL NOT be making any financial contribution toward building the stadium.

Am I missing something or do some people not listen or look at what is happening to EFC. The Stadium will not be world class. It WILL NOT be free. Tesco are not giving any money to Everton. The land will NOT be owned by EFC.

KW has a past history of contradicting himself and to my mind that makes him a liar.

Ed
well done in putting forward FACTS which is what so many people are blindy choosing to ignore.

Neil Adderley
108   Posted 04/04/2008 at 19:50:36

Report abuse

Art - "Neil, quite clearly I have responded to each and every post you have addressed to me. I quite clearly gave you reasons as to why I did not respond to one particular topic. You accept that as my right or not. Cheers now."

No problem Art. I fully accept that it is your ’right’ to avoid adding any substance to the style.

’Bye then.

Gavin Ramejkis
109   Posted 04/04/2008 at 21:47:13

Report abuse

Art my insightful point was that you make what you will out of a claim of law, KW’s claims against KEOIC may prove to be utterly unfounded once they are subjected to human interpretation - so insightful being perceptive of the possibility that KW and his legal team may have interpreted the "evidence" differently from that which a court of law may in exactly the same way as BT may be in the shit over their actions.
Tom Hughes
110   Posted 05/04/2008 at 17:17:20

Report abuse

Tommy (apologies for only taking a fleeting glance at your name),

I didn’t only read your post once, I answered each point individually. In response you have not disputed any of my counter arguments, but are now clinging to the Z-cars theme as an over-riding reason to favour Kirkby. As far as a hobby is concerned..... apart from when at Sea I have missed three home games since Alan Ball was playing, and Z-cars being based in Kirkby is nothing like enough for me!
Ron Leith
111   Posted 05/04/2008 at 17:53:46

Report abuse

Scenario 1. EFC stay put at Goodison, LFC build 70,000 seater stadium next door, Moyes and players see what ambition really is and think lets move on. Does the Peoples Club mean a lack of vision, no balls, keep with what you know, can?t take a risk, scared to move 4 miles, suseptible to believing any oldreactionary tosh. If we are left behind our rival due to lethargy and inertia it will be a tragedy. Lets not give up the ghost and stop trying to improve. Let's not put up the white flag etc. For KEIOC read the Liberal Party: whooly-headed stick-in-the-muds.
Tom Hughes
112   Posted 05/04/2008 at 20:41:22

Report abuse

Or another Scenario 1: Move outside the city of your origin, desert your history and heritage, lose your identity, run away when the reds throw down the gauntlet, leave them the whole city. Let your club become a distant memory, out of sight and out of mind.

You see Ron, it’s easy to wax lyrical without really saying anything substantial. Yet I feel my emotional narrative is nearer the mark than yours.

Or, you can try to add some meat to the bones:

Move to a site with grossly inferior public transport connections for the vast majority of Evertonians, to a non-descript basic off-the-shelf stadium, 8 miles outside our city centre and all its amenities and major national and local rail hubs to a site with next to no local amenities and one end of line single platform station (not exactly on the doorstep). I don’t call that vision, more like blindness. The same myopia that ignores the false promises and fundamentally flawed decision process and bogus vote that have brought us thus far.

Well done for involving Moyes. Is this Moyes the traditionalist who has hinted on more than one occasion that he would prefer to stay at GP. He’s got us to the point where we are only a few players from getting on the real gravy train, .... the one that follows success on the pitch and not dodgy utopias at out of town stadia (all while at GP). I wonder how much he’ll get to spend over the next few years while the club has to find £100m+ upfront for the stadium that’s supposed to cost practically nothing......? All when he can have extra capacity at GP for a fraction of the cost.

As far as LFC are concerned, the fact that they had to sit in their hovel and face the finest stadium in the country for generations never stopped them from going on to win the Everything. In case it passed you by, they left us behind over a generation ago, a position consolidated by virtue of now having over 3m fans in this country, and tens of millions worldwide..... Kirkby wont change that. Giving Moyes the money now while he’s got us so close might, and hopefully agent Hicks will help too

Face the facts.... Kirkby is none of the things it was acclaimed to be at the vote. Absolutely nothing like it. Criticising fellow blues without being able to argue against their main points does them and yourself a great disservice.

Everton Forever!
Bernie Robson
113   Posted 05/04/2008 at 23:21:54

Report abuse

As far as the travel issue goes how are 3,000+ away supporters getting to Kirkby from Lime St? I can?t see them joining us on the Kirkby train without problems.
Tom Hughes
114   Posted 06/04/2008 at 10:35:02

Report abuse

According to the transport analysis carried out by the tesco’s consultants the whole public transport capacity for Kirkby is just 3-5,000 per hr max. I think the term used was crush loaded. So in the normal pre-match 2 hr window only between 6-10,000 people could get there by bus or train..... which means of course that there will need to be over 10,000 car parking spaces. The real fun is afterwards though, when we all leave together. Away fans are a big issue though. There is next to no parking on site, so they will be expected to share the park and ride and public transport..... fun and games all round.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to Column articles, 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 MailBag submissions across the site.



© ToffeeWeb
Menu
OK

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.