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

Behind the Royal Blue Shield

By David O'Keefe :  29/06/2008 :  Comments (29) :
I have had enough of discussing the merits of moving to Kirkby, you can argue about it until you are blue in the face. Kirkby is a dark shadow, but what of the real villains of the peace?

The Board of directors will make, according to some shareholders (who are petitioning for an EGM), £37 million from the move; Mr Kenwright will take £13.5 million of this.

The shareholders correctly point out that Destination Kirkby will not give the club a viable future as a business. This element is the most important aspect of the move; it has to make money for the club.

At last the quo bono aspect of DK has been resolved. Destination Kirkby will make money for the majority shareholders but not the club.

This is disgraceful, for the board to put its own interests ahead of the clubs is an abrogation of its duty to its shareholders, employees and in this instance its fans. A board of directors should act in the club's interests not its own, if not illegal it is certainly immoral.

Is Mr Kenwright the fan that he professes to be to all and sundry? For many, the fact he is a fan is good enough for them. Unfortunately he is the chairman of a business with a turnover of £60 million. That business is Everton Football Club. He has been chairman for almost ten years, what has he achieved in this time?

Destination Kirkby is a disaster that can be averted by one method only ? a change of ownership. As supporters, we forced out Mr Johnson whose major failings were that he was a Kopite and made too many outlandish promises. Despite this he offered us the Kings Dock. Kings Dock was Kenwright's initiative; Johnson's was to move to the club to Aintree or Cronton Colliery ? Ed

Mr Kenwright is an Evertonian, yet his record is worse than Mr Johnson?s. Under his stewardship we have gone from waterfront to backwater and treading water as the club's accounts make clear every year.

As for his blue credentials:

?The new stadium will not possess the heritage, history and special atmosphere generated by Goodison Park and those Evertonians who are left behind in the new stadium will be left with a subdued match day experience and atmosphere as the new ground is gradually vacated by those Evertonians who are deterred by the inconvenience placed before them.?

The only thing Mr Kenwright has not been able to asset strip is our heritage... until now. He has hidden behind his royal blue shield for too long. This man is not an Evertonian by any standard, he is a traitor.

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


John Sreet
1   Posted 30/06/2008 at 06:15:47

Report abuse

WOW! David, worse record than Johnson..... d?ya expect to be top six this season, or bottom six.... Sorry some things have changed, he?s not been an unmitigated disaster, he?s backed a manager and funded him somewhat to give us a team, or was that just good luck!
Jay Campbell
2   Posted 30/06/2008 at 07:26:40

Report abuse

Kenwright has told lies on numerous occasion’s. FACT.

Wyness is a businessman who see’s Everton as his toy to make money for himself. FACT.

Now would you honestly trust these 2 with the biggest transaction in the club’s history?? Seriously think about it.

Kirkby is the only viable option on the table because of Kenwright’s failings for the last 15 years and we should not accept this move because him and the board have not been able to run the football club properly.

Richard Parker
3   Posted 30/06/2008 at 08:03:12

Report abuse

More meaningless figures bounced about.....

Kenwright will make £13.5M will he? The project will cost the club £78M.... We’ll get smaller crowds. We’ll have less supporters......

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t really want the Kirkby move to go ahead. I think we’re accepting something mediocre that is probably not in the long-term interests of this club. If we’re looking, seriously at competing with the top-4, we need a top-4 club. From the management (Moyes is good enough), to the players (4 or 5 additions should do it), to the training facilities (apparently Finch Farm ticks this box), to the stadium (in my humble opinion Kirkby doesn’t tick the box at all).

What I am totally fed up with is people throwing numbers and so-called-facts around, that no-one can be certain of. Not even BK can know how much he’ll pocket from the project. That’s the nature of a big project. And that’s if these sources are correct and he’ll pocket anything from it.

Oppose Kirkby for what it is going to be. I couldn’t give 2 shits if BK becomes Britain’s richest man on the back of the Kirkby project, if it delivers a top-4 stadium and benefits the long-term future of Everton. But opposing Kirkby on the back of a set of fictitious figures is a load of bollocks.

I think a lot of the opposition are as bad, if not worse than the club for mis-information. I can’t be arsed to read these articles any more.
EJ Ruane
4   Posted 30/06/2008 at 10:48:57

Report abuse

Richard you say..

"I can?t be arsed to read these articles any more"

Congratulations!!!

You are the 1,000,000th customer who can’t be arsed reading these articles anymore....but obviously does.
Ian Stewart
5   Posted 30/06/2008 at 13:06:49

Report abuse

Well said Richard!!!
Damian Wilde
6   Posted 30/06/2008 at 14:02:31

Report abuse

Well said Richard. Seems like you’ve upset some of our resident experts though.
Dominic Bobadilla
7   Posted 30/06/2008 at 14:18:49

Report abuse

Let’s remain at Goodison for another 1000 years. Consult the architects: it is fully possible to develop Goodison at a reasonable price. Get the Chinese to do it!
EJ Ruane
8   Posted 30/06/2008 at 15:40:28

Report abuse

Damian, you say..

"Well said Richard. Seems like you?ve upset some of our resident experts though"

I have to say ’u-p-s-e-t’ is the worst spelling of bored I’ve ever seen.
David OKeefe
9   Posted 30/06/2008 at 16:27:59

Report abuse

Richard
Are the figure fictitious?The Grayson and Bennet are wrong and the board have nothing to worry about.

The club is getting a 130 million pound asset at the cost of 78 million. Who will benefit from this 52 million pound subsidy? The shareholders, or to be more precise the majority shareholders, Earl,Woods and Kenwright.

A 52 million pound subsidy on a 130 million project is a cracking deal for them. The clubs value goes up and if an investor comes in they make a big return on their initial investment.

Shame about the business plan
Alan Willo
10   Posted 30/06/2008 at 17:54:59

Report abuse

David, your rant is completely rubbish and extremely stupid. Do you not understand that EFC ltd is a business that is owned by shareholders? Well from your crap rant you obviously don?t understand the mechanics of it at all and as usual all you want to do is kick the board. EFC Ltd whether you like it or not is in a far better financial state since BK took over, therefore as one of the majority share holders of the company, if sold he is INTITLED AND DESERVES a return should one be forthcoming. It?s not illegal or is it immoral, its how business works. It?s obviously apparent the decision for Kirkby is looming hence the more ridiculous the rants are. Why not put all your efforts in to getting the project called in than slandering the Directors, maybe if the No?s had done this from the beginning then just maybe all your passion could have been directed in an appropriate manner. Ever wondered why the vast majority of fans home and away have never voiced any disapproval it?s because of rants like this that lose any creditability that the No?s genuinely have. Firstly, you want him out of the club, secondly you want him and others to give up their right to a return? What world do you live in??? COYB
EJ Ruane
11   Posted 30/06/2008 at 18:40:47

Report abuse

Jesus!

Alan "I can’t be bothered with this anymore" WIllo begins to show the strain.

’Crap’, ’stupid’, ’rubbish’?

He seems ’INGULFED’ with rage.

A little over’ IXCITED’

Who’d have thunk it?

Mr ’"I won’t address the rest of your post as it was just a rant" is hammering out caps, treble question marks, the lot.

Have to give it to him (again) for brass-neck though.

I mean anyone who can spout that shite then include..

"It?s obviously apparent the decision for Kirkby is looming hence the more ridiculous the rants are"

Thank you Mr Pot!

Here’s a couple of tips Al (you don’t mind if I call you Al?).

1) Google ’slander and libel, the difference’.

2) If you’re going to use caps to spell out INTIRE words, these are deffo words to spell correctly.

Now breathe deeply....Dumbkoff!

David OKeefe
12   Posted 30/06/2008 at 19:47:33

Report abuse

Do a Wiki search on Projection Alan.

Alan do you understand anything at all? Make a business case for Kirkby that is what I expect from the board. Yes they own the club, yes they are entitled to a return on the investment, but they are supposed to act in the clubs best interests.

There is no business case for Kirkby that is my point. The fans get a raw deal, the board a good one. Deal of the Century.. for the board only.
Mark Billing
13   Posted 30/06/2008 at 21:29:10

Report abuse

Richard
More ya-boo-sucks comments for you.

"What I am totally fed up with is people throwing numbers and so-called-facts around, that no-one can be certain of. Not even BK can know how much he?ll pocket from the project. That?s the nature of a big project."

This all sounds very much like the actions of the Board that many have become fed up with, the throwing around of ’facts’ and ’figures’ that they are not certain of and have subsequently been revealed to be well off the mark. If BK doesn’t know how much he’ll pocket from it (if at all) what confidence do we have that he or the Board know how Everton will benefit from the scheme? Does he run his theatre impressario business on the same basis; *thinks* ’Hmm, not sure how well [insert name of musical here] will do but I’ll put it on anyway, see how it goes’. As for such uncertainty being the nature of these large schemes, utter tosh! Nobody builds an airport extension (at much greater costs than Kirkby) for example if there isn’t a business case which will be minutely tested with the varying rates of return for differing nuances in the preferred solution critically assessed (having already looked in close detail at the different global solutions); if that’s too difficult for the Board then they’re either not up to this particular task or they’re employing Korky the Kat and Desparate Dan as advisors.

"I couldn?t give 2 shits if BK becomes Britain?s richest man on the back of the Kirkby project, if it delivers a top-4 stadium and benefits the long-term future of Everton. But opposing Kirkby on the back of a set of fictitious figures is a load of bollocks."

Agreed provided that the scale of the reward matches the effort and risk. Doesn’t look that way at present; is it accepatble if (that’s an ’if’ everyone!) the Board turn out to be another group of Fat Cats profiting from profiteering (not sure that you can do otherwise!). Your argument for opposing them can readily be turned on its head; PROPOSING Kirkby on a set of fictitious figures is a load of bollocks (and they started it!)

"I think a lot of the opposition are as bad, if not worse than the club for mis-information. I can?t be arsed to read these articles any more. "

I don’t know whether you genuinely haven’t bothered to read any of the assessments and publications published (and not by ’the opposition’) into the public domain though the planning process, or whether you are just resorting to the last refuge of a man with no arguments, namely calling " the opposition" liars!

Trust that I haven’t wasted any of your time; you’ll show yourself to be a liar if you respond as you already can’t be arsed reading this stuff anymore.
;)
Neil Pearse
14   Posted 30/06/2008 at 22:33:56

Report abuse

I’m sorry David, but you understand nothing about finance and your initial post is absolute rubbish.

A few basics. Shareholders’ equity can only go up if the value of the entire company goes up. So, if the value of Bill’s shares goes up, this is because Everton FC has become a more valuable company. It is logically and mathematically impossible for Bill’s shares to go up in value independently of the value of the total company. (Okay, unless there are very different classes of share, and the club is exotically financially structured. But I’ve never heard of that being the case.)

I guess you will have to explain to me why Everton is apparently about to become the first company in the history of the universe for which it is a bad thing to have its value go up.

Just in case you don’t see why, in practical terms, having a higher value is a good thing - one thing it means is that the club can borrow more money at lower interest rates against its value. In case you don’t understand what this means, it means: better players (or whatever else we choose to spend our money on).

Further: the increase in asset value of the club from getting Kirkby assets at in effect below cost only translates into a realisable benefit for Bill and other shareholders if somebody is actually willing to buy the club at this increased value. Companies are generally valued at the net present value of discounted cash flows (not on asset values, particularly not on basically unrealisable asset values as in this case; unless you think that some buyer will buy the club and then sell the Kirkby stadium. Hmmm. To who would that be? And where will we then play?).

Anyway, Bill will actually not make any more money unless somebody thinks that the club will generate more money on an ongoing basis as a result of the Kirkby investment. That means: unless a buyer thinks that the Kirkby investment has been a basically good one on an ongoing basis for the club, then the Knowsley/Tesco subsidy won’t actually do him any good.

Incidentally, glad to see that Nos are now rushing to point out that the Kirkby project involves a massive subsidy from Knowsley and Tesco to the club. Now that this is, if you are completely ignorant about finance, a stick to beat the Board with. Some of us have been abused for pointing out this subsidy for some time. At this stage, it seems that anything goes in terms of argument!
David OKeefe
15   Posted 01/07/2008 at 01:40:55

Report abuse

A few basics. Shareholders? equity can only go up if the value of the entire company goes up. So, if the value of Bill?s shares goes up, this is because Everton FC has become a more valuable company. It is logically and mathematically impossible for Bill?s shares to go up in value independently of the value of the total company. (Okay, unless there are very different classes of share, and the club is exotically financially structured. But I?ve never heard of that being the case.)

Of course DK will increase the value of the club and the value of everyones shares, I never suggested otherwise, but the major beneficiaries of an increase in value will be the major shareholders. Then again I never said anything of the sort, Neil so stop constructing a straw man, my post is about winners and losers from DK.

So this is it DK will allow the club to borrow more money. Forgive me Neil, but the club is going to borrow 78million and then borrow another 52 million from the increase in value to fund player trading?



Forget the subsidy Neil, where is the business plan behind DK?

I’m sorry Neil, but you began with a strawman, I m no financial whizzkid, but don’t put words in my mouth. This response has been extremely patronising, but even when you win Neil, you lose.

David OKeefe
16   Posted 01/07/2008 at 02:16:19

Report abuse

Anyway, Bill will actually not make any more money unless somebody thinks that the club will generate more money on an ongoing basis as a result of the Kirkby investment.

Actually Neil, This is the issue the business plan, how much money the move will generate. Kirkby has to pay for itself, although from your previous post the board may borrow on the subsidy and that s it.
Neil Pearse
17   Posted 01/07/2008 at 07:08:55

Report abuse

Apologies David for the patronising tone. What I really get frustrated about is the constant distraction in this debate, making it ’all about Bill and Keith’. It isn’t! It’s about the financial state of the club, its inability to attract major investment, and indeed, as you say, about the Kirkby business plan.

All I am really saying is that Bill only has valuable shares to sell if somebody else believes that he has created financial potential for the club in the future. If Kirkby looks like it will be a financial disaster for the club (as most on this site predict), the value of his shares CANNOT go up - unless there is some idiot out there willing to pay way over the odds.

The scenario in which Bill destroys present and future value at the club but makes a personal killing simply does not exist.
David Okeefe
18   Posted 01/07/2008 at 12:11:49

Report abuse

Neil
The clubs financial state and Bill and Keith can not be sperated, we cant talk about one and ignore the other. They put forward KD as an option and Bill has been part of the club since the early 1990s.



"The scenario in which Bill destroys present and future value at the club but makes a personal killing simply does not exist."

Neil if I have understood you correctly the clubs value will be increased by DK and on a previous thread you claimed that it would encourage an investor to come forward. My point is Neil, I’ m confused.
Christine Foster
19   Posted 01/07/2008 at 13:48:08

Report abuse

Its in BK interest not to invite investors until Kirkby is a done deal and stadium on its way or built. Why? ok.
Given that the the value of a £150m stadium is a £150m and cost is subsidised by £60m the club gains the asset windfall. BK now invites investors to buy in to the club but of course his share holding value has doubled making it a very lucrative exercise personally. Whoever wants a seat at the table has to fork out the cost of BK?s asset-inflated value before any inflow can be given to the team. That's perhaps the real reason for the drive to Kirkby and the stonewalling of any potention investors.

I repeat, IF Kirby fails to eventuate, suddenly the gates of Goodison will be opeded to any inward investment and BK will offload asap.

It's not a question of winning or losing for the board, its a question of how much future debt they are willng to saddle the club with to see Kirkby succeed.
Neil Pearse
20   Posted 01/07/2008 at 19:14:08

Report abuse

There really is a basic confusion here. What someone is prepared to pay for something is not determined in any rigid way by the value of the underlying physical assets. Everton Football Club is an ongoing business, not a tradeable commodity (like say oil or gold bars). People are not buying Everton to sell the assets, but to benefit from the growth of the business.

Unless all modern financial theory is bunk, what someone is prepared to pay for a business is determined by the net present value of the future cash flows which the assets enable. More simply: by future revenue streams.

Christine - no buyer will pay any "asset inflated value" unless they believe that the assets enable enhanced future revenue streams. So if all buyers out there believe what most posters on Toffeeweb apparently believe - that Kirkby will be a financial disaster for the club - then Bill will actually receive a discounted value for his shares. Because future revenue streams will be so unattractive.

The reason why Kirkby is more likely to attract investors is that (a) the buyer does not have to pay upfront to fund all the cost of a new or improved stadium, and (b) the future revenue streams of the business are enhanced by the new stadium.

I have no idea why someone would be more likely to emerge to buy the club if Kirkby does not go through. (a) and (b) no longer hold. The investor would certainly be looking at a much higher upfront cash outlay (dreadful for net present value). As well as perhaps at less attractive future revenue streams (certainly from a modified GP versus a brand new purpose built stadium).

Bill might just be more likely to sell, but that would only be because he fears that the value of his shares is going down the toilet, so he might as well cash in at a heavily discounted value now. The scenario you paint is one in which Bill sells because the club is in pretty dire straits with a pretty unattractive future. Yippee!
David O'Keefe
21   Posted 01/07/2008 at 22:20:33

Report abuse

Neil
The basic confusion is yours and yours alone. Accepting the Leahy explanation that DK will make the club attractive to a new investor, but not accepting that a £130 million pound asset with a £52 million pound subsidy will not increase the clubs values?

In your defence you bring up the issue of ehanced revenue streams, where are they? There will be no concerts at Kirkby and KMBC have a 100 free uses of the conference facilities. This is giving away the shop.
Neil Pearse
22   Posted 01/07/2008 at 22:51:00

Report abuse

David - if there are no enhanced revenue streams, there will be no windfall for Bill. I’m sorry, you can’t have it both ways. Why would anyone pay a lot of money for a business that isn’t going to make any money? They won’t. You are simply contradicting yourself.

Once more: the new owner of Everton FC won’t buy it to sell the stadium to someone else (who to for fuck’s sake?). They will buy it to make money as a going concern.

You guys were actually right first time around (before you decided to stand on your heads): what matters about Kirkby is whether it makes money (not the bloody asset values). If it won’t make money for the club, it won’t make money for Bill.

The best business argument against Kirkby has nothing to do with Bill or Keith, or what they said or didn’t say, or how much money they might or might not make. It is a matter of whether whatever we have to borrow to build the stadium is or is not recouped by increased future revenue streams; versus whatever is the next best option. You are right and I am wrong if Kirkby’s revenues will not on a discounted basis more than cover the discounted cash costs of the borrowings. That is all that matters.

For Kirkby to be worth doing for Everton supporters, it has to be better than the next best available option for the club. That is all. Whether it is better than some mythical ideal, or better or worse than what was proposed nine months ago, is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT. It is all water under the bridge. All that matters are the actual options we have available to us NOW. The relevant comparison is with rebuilding Goodison, since it is plain that we cannot afford any other options in our present financial condition with our current owners.

By the way, I must admit I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at the fact that the very same people who for nine months cried "there is no subsidy for Kirkby!", now line up to INSIST that there is a whopping subsidy. Because now it is a stick to beat Bill with. Except, if you know anything about finance, it isn’t.

Actually, when you come to think about it, If there really is such a large subsidy, then perhaps this really is close to the ’deal of the century’ after all?
Neil Pearse
23   Posted 01/07/2008 at 23:18:11

Report abuse

David, just one final thing. I perhaps confused by saying both ’securing Kirkby will increase the possibility of a new owner’ and ’this is not essentially because of increased asset value relative to costs’.

What would make us more attractive to a new investor if we secure Kirkby would be (a) Kirkby having enhanced revenue streams for the club, and (b) at a relatively low cost given the subsidised nature of the new stadium. Put simply: increased revenue potential at relatively low initial cash outlay. Nothing whatsoever to do with asset values.

I’m not sure what makes so many posters on Toffeeweb so obsessed with physical assets, their precise values, what exactly we own or don’t own, and what has been outsourced and kept in-house. Mostly irrelevant. We are a football club, a going concern, and not a real estate developer or asset trader. What matters is whether the cash coming in exceeds the cash going out. It is cash in hand, or the promise of future cash coming in, which enables us to buy new players on the pitch and pay their wages.
David OKeefe
24   Posted 02/07/2008 at 00:01:07

Report abuse

Neil
Once again don’t build a straw man.

"Further: the increase in asset value of the club from getting Kirkby assets at in effect below cost only translates into a realisable benefit for Bill and other shareholders if somebody is actually willing to buy the club at this increased value. Companies are generally valued at the net present value of discounted cash flows (not on asset values, particularly not on basically unrealisable asset values as in this case; unless you think that some buyer will buy the club and then sell the Kirkby stadium. Hmmm. To who would that be? And where will we then play?).

You failed to answer a simple question and come back with this again.

"Once more: the new owner of Everton FC won?t buy it to sell the stadium to someone else (who to for fuck?s sake?). They will buy it to make money as a going concern."

Don’t play the I know the finances card with me , Just answer the question. Neil this is a red herring and really starting to grate. I never suggested that a new owner of EFC would be an asset stripper.


Then again this is going nowhere, its about revenue streams and this was why I was against DK because I didn’t see where the money was coming from to cover the debts.


Neil don’t play the I know finance card, you made a good argument, but when determining a companies value, assets do come into it.

Neil Pearse
25   Posted 02/07/2008 at 22:57:16

Report abuse

David, we can put this to bed because I think we agree on this: it’s revenues versus the upfront costs that are relevant to the success of Kirkby, the future value of the club, and what someone will be prepared to pay for it.

Of course disagree about those future revenues and costs, and therefore whether Kirkby represents a good financial move for the club. No problem there. Since the future is uncertain, this is something reasonable people can certainly disagree about.

The red herring that started all this was the ignorant claim that the fact that at Kirkby the club would acquire a new stadium for below its true cost, would automatically translate into a killing for Bill (and is why we are doing Kirkby). That is simply bollocks from every angle. Let’s try to pretend that nobody ever argued anything so obviously stupid.
David OKeefe
26   Posted 03/07/2008 at 01:43:08

Report abuse

Neil this "ignorant" claim has been made by a number of shareholders.

If there is no business plan then claiming that the raison d?etre for Kirkby is lining the shareholders pockets via the subsidy and the new stadium effect (which I should have brought up) pushing up the clubs value, is a valid argument.

Thank you Neil, I now understand why Kirkby is the "deal of the century".
Christine Foster
27   Posted 03/07/2008 at 03:08:24

Report abuse

Neil, your comments about stupid and ignorant claims is bordering on incredulous. Specifically in a PRIVATE company such as EFC shares are not traded publically and therefore any potential investor uses as a guiding principle, the assets of that company to measure its worth.
What someone actually pays for that worth is done as a process of negotiation (no share price to set a guide)

Given that an asset has increased in worth eg the club is worth more because the assets have grown, it is reasonably to suggest that the percentage of the company owned by each shareholder will increase in value by said same % increase.

Hence therefore if someone is selling a property with a market value of 150m then thats what their expectation would normally be.

This is a business and a successful business woul suppliment that market value !

So, IF Kirkby come be shown to be potentially successful to a new investor they would have to not only look at the operating revenue but also the value of the assets in determining whether the investment is good for them.

To argue that the shareholders would not see any upside due to the subsidy is frankly foolish. The only red herring here is your argument.
Neil Pearse
28   Posted 03/07/2008 at 10:18:48

Report abuse

Sorry Christine, but the main thing investors would look at is future cash flows, not underlying assets (especially when the underlying assets, as in this case, are essentially illiquid and non-tradeable).

I believe that there will be an upside to shareholders because of Kirkby - because I believe the future cash flows will look positive relative to the ongoing cash costs of the investment and borrowings.

By all your previous posts, you don’t believe this. You believe that Kirkby cash flows will be unattractive, so you believe that the club will be worth less (and will have cash outgoing to pay on debts which it should never have entered into because they do not offer a good return).

You should stick to your guns Christine! But you cannot have it both ways. Kirkby cannot be a bad business investment and a boost to the share price. (If you know how to do this M&S and Taylor Wimpey, just to mention two companies in the news yesterday, would love you to get in touch...)
Christine Foster
29   Posted 04/07/2008 at 08:50:28

Report abuse

Neil, the financial case for Kirkby has, in my opinion, has never been made. Not only that, the detail portrayed as such has evaporated as just hype.

Too many assumptions have been made on both sides of the arguement when actual facts are not and never have been made public.

The club chose to bring the fans into the process and asked them to make decisions based, not on fact but on a sales pitch.

The financial aspects of Kirkby are in my opinion purely speculative and as the days go by and the sales pitch is whittled away to what? Well.. more debt for a poor quality choice in a poor quality location with a poor qualityobjective.

Well we got what we expected then from a poor quality choice.

Kirkby has never been JUST about location. Or JUST about transport or Just about debt, or JUST about tradition. It has been ALL of these.

It HAS been about the manner in which fans had placed their trust in what they were told. It HAS been about the lack of transparency, it HAS been about the way the whole process has been managed, it HAS been about the club allowing the fan base to be split because of their lies and silence.It HAS been the thought of leaving the city to the RS and the shame of knowing that its not the best choice, not the only choice but it is the choice of a few we are expected to trust.

That is why, and aways has been why, Kirkby has not fired our imagination, not filled out hearts with Pride.

The board of Directors of this club are not just shareholders they are custodians of tradition. It FEELS like we are seeing 20 pieces of silver being handed over in exchange for ourchildrens legacy.

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.