I'm sorry, the sentiment is sweet, but if people wish to continue to comment, that is entirely up to them. I take a dim view of anyone trying to control or limit reasonable (no-abusive) debate on here. Sorry.

I have been an Evertonian now for nearly 40 years, and was a season ticket holder for 10 years during the nervous nineties. But alas I had to give up attending when I was forced to move down south, due to my work and the fact my then future wife was a southerner. So I won't be voting on the stadium move. We should know the result in the next 48 hours.

But how am I supposed to feel over this stadium move which ever way the vote goes. I actually don't feel anyting apart from some apprehension over where we may end up as a club. Whatever the result, I will remain an Evertonian and will no doubt be attending games in the future whereever that may be.

To be perfectly honest I really don't care where the stadium is built, as along it is in the long term benefit of the club and its loyal fans, and it can still be regarded as a Liverpool based club. Kirkby in my opinion is part of Liverpool regardless of which council collects the garbage, so moving there would be okay in my opinion. I am feeling kind of empty at the moment as the biggest ballot in the clubs history comes to a close, but how should I feel?

Is the editor on the board at Everton. I,ve read the Echo for many years and i have never seen a such a biased view to one side on the move to kirkby. Terry tesco just about got he,s last sentence out and it was in the front page. Kirkby wellcomes Everton, which was a lie. Tom Cannons Statement, Why we should go to Kirkby. Any alternative view, was a small piece on the inside page. Yesterday{wed] Rival stadium plan will fit in the city, From LCC and Bestway. It got to page 19 of the Echo. This is the most important time in Evertons history and did we get a transparent demercratic view from both sides, from the echo? I,ll let you decide.

I cant see a story of a stadium being able to fit on a field making the front page,there are lots of places that it would fit! The problem is that so far there are no plans in place (that have been released) to make up the rest of the page!

Colin with out doubt the Echo favours Bill any good independent journalist could have pointed out any one of his many mistakes and indiscretions or to be blunt lies.But instead the Echo,MR king and mr Prentice in particular seem to bend over backwards for him and sadly even in this age a lot of people still believe that anything printed must be true I voted no but what ever the result provided its above board I hope we fans can reconcile our differences but it will not be easy

To be honest, I don’t think the Echo, any other media outlet, pronouncements from the Club or KEIOC or pretty pictures of Kirkby, the Loop or of a redeveloped Goodison have had any more than a very marginal effect on the vote. The YES and NO votes were, in my opinion, crystallized and lined up for counting long ago and the vote has been cast and soon we will know the result.It may be that I am very untypical, but the nine voting Evertonians I know decided to vote YES months ago and (unless they are lying!) have done so. Despite my belief that this issue has been well decided, it has not, however, prevented a schism appearing between Evertonians and that is regrettable.

Although I am a YES voter, I hope for a substantial decision either way. The worst possible outcome would be a very narrow ’victory’ for either pursuasion because I am certain there will be several thousand unreturned ballots (how many supporters who had a season ticket 1,2 or 3 years ago have died..or moved away..moved abroad..become unemployed or just changed address for instance?) The unreturned ballots will be forever held up as the issue that could have swayed it the other way. Psychology tells us too that NO voters ( quite reasonably because they perceive themselves as having most to lose)are likely to be more committed to their cause and so a narrow YES ’victory’ could be the worst result of all.The recriminations could take a long time to quell.

I consider the Club have acted imperfectly in allowing the vote to determine the future location of the Stadium and, hence, possibly the future of Everton FC. I say imperfectly rather than ’wrong’ because I do appreciate the sentiment as expressed by Kenwright in saying that ’he’ does not own the Club and that he never considered any other option but a supporters vote to determine the matter. But the effect of that has been that whatever the outcome, whether the Club blooms or withers, the finger will always be pointed at us, the supporters, which makes me wonder why we have a Board in the first place? By granting us a determining vote the importance of the fans has been acknowledged and I appreciate that. But I cannot help but feel a little cowardice on the part of the powers that be has been in evidence too. The Board should have argued its case from the pulpit, not from the sidelines. It should have lived or died by the success or failure of its argument. Instead, it left the argument to us.

In case anybody is interested, I made these views known to the Club via the official website (the ’contact us’ box) several weeks ago. I did not receive a reply.

Why do people seem to think that the naysayers should be given special headline dispensation?
It’s like people protesting against new runways at airports. The announcement of a new runway is headline news, a few hippies protesting about it isn’t really. Same precedent applies here.

Sean the naysayers are just a bunch of hippies? The naysayers haven’t declared headline dispensation just parity in light of the misinformation propogated by the CEO of Everton FC Keith Wyness together with the questionable "professional witness" type statements from traffic planners and a professor one in direct payment of Everton FC the other on the Board. It’s like a tobacco company saying cigarettes don’t cause cancer according to our professor.

"This is the most important time in Evertons history and did we get a transparent demercratic view from both sides, from the echo? I,ll let you decide."

Who says newspapers need to be democratic? Newspapers have editorial stances, and they publish stories which back up their editorial line- comapre the news pages of the Independent and the Times for example- they will be completely differnt based on their editorial stance.

The Echo is not a part of government, it’s a part of Trinity Mirror Publishing. Why should it be democratic? It has a right to only push one side of a story, or it’s own agenda, in the same way that Michael Moore doesn’t need to give George Bush’s side of an argument when he makes a documentary about him.

The Echo seems to back the move. Why should this bother those who don’t? The Daily Mail backs tigghtening immigration legislation, i don’t. I don’t acuse it of being "undemocratic"- I just don’t read it. I’d advise if you disagree so strongly with an editorial line of the Echo, just stop reading it

Michael, I wans’t for one moment suggesting that you start censuring people’s comments, I was just hoping that people would accept the result, whatever it is (since found it’s a yes according to SSN) and stop the nastiness that has been appearing.

I think it’s now time to just start supporting the team rather than have demos or banners etc. at the game.

"Michael Moore doesn?t need to give George Bush?s side of an argument when he makes a documentary about him."

" The Daily Mail backs tigghtening immigration legislation, i don?t."

You left wing by any chance mate? ;-)