FAN ARTICLES
Dear Peter ? From Bill...
Comments (58) : The Response Kenwright Should Have Given
Foreword
Here, in my view, is the reply Bill Kenwright should have sent to Peter Kilfoyle following the disclosure of the Walton MP?s correspondence with Baroness Andrews in support of the Kirkby Project. I have had to pretend that I am both Bill Kenwright and a supporter of the move to Knowsley and, as regular Toffeeweb readers will know, I am neither.
I was prompted to ghost-write Bill Kenwright?s ?response? to Peter Kilfoyle because ? and I doubt I was alone ? I felt personally slighted as an Evertonian to read a public servant so openly disparaging our club.
Despite my avowed opposition of the Kirkby Project, I have remained, until now, a long-term defender of the wider aspects of Bill Kenwright?s regime at Everton (having never forgotten his personal sacrifice to acquire the club and drag it from the mire of the Peter Johnson years). Despite personal criticism and ridicule, I have supported Bill Kenwright against accusations that he is slowly ruining EFC. For the first time ever, I can honestly say that I am no longer a supporter of his custodianship of the club (I doubt he?ll lose sleep) and sadly that I should have listened to his many detractors much earlier.
Because to see Everton publish and display Kilfoyle?s letter so openly and triumphantly ? as though it were something to be proud of ? was a step-too-far and perhaps the saddest thing I?ve ever witnessed the club sanction. In my view, it truly was the lowest of many low-points since I first pitched up at Goodison in 1972 and it has signalled to me, at least, that the soul of EFC is already dying.
What other conclusion can you come to when the club is so openly trashed and our custodians not only fail to mount a sound defence but actually seem to welcome the sideswipes?
About as far removed from Nil Satis Nisi Optimum as it?s possible to get.
Sad.
Dear Peter,
Thank you for your letter to Baroness Andrews supporting our proposed relocation of Everton Football Club to Kirkby and for sharing its contents with me.
Whilst I am, of course, gratified that you have shown such implicit support for the joint project between ourselves,Tesco and Knowsley Council, I have to express my disappointment that you also used your letter to the Baroness as a ?Trojan Horse? opportunity to express some of your deeper convictions about Everton Football Club?s role and standing in its immediate and surrounding community.
Not only was it deeply disconcerting to read how little value you place on the long-held presence of Everton in Walton but I have to say it was also somewhat surprising given that you are a self-proclaimed supporter of the football club.
If I may perhaps offer you a different perspective of Everton?s good standing in the Walton and north Liverpool areas in the hope that you will reconsider your evidently low opinion of the club?s local contribution.
You are, sadly, right when you say that neither the players nor the majority of staff live in the immediate vicinity of Goodison Park ? although I can assure you that quite a number of employees do, even among David Moyes? immediate team ? but I hardly think we are unique in that respect in Premier League football. Further, I hardly think we are unique in the wider commercial field for having a considerable number of our employees living beyond the immediate precincts of the workplace.
While we can all hanker after a golden era in football when players would live close by the ground and walk to the stadium amidst the fans, the reality is that such a closeknit connection disappeared many decades ago, not just at Everton but, I would wager, at the vast majority of professional clubs in England.
Therefore I feel it was somewhat disingenuous of you to flag this up to Baroness Andrews as an indication that somehow Everton are uniquely failing to support its local community by having an employee base that resides well beyond the footprint of Goodison Park.
Moreover, I actually wondered what point you were trying to prove given that the expansively mobile era we live in has not only led to footballers living some way from their workplace but has seen the vast majority of employees in other sectors commute to work.
Regardless, though, of the fact that our employees, in the main, live away from Goodison Park, it should be remembered that a significant majority of match day going Evertonians live within five miles of Goodison Park and, given that we have one of the largest proportions of ?walk-up? supporters in the Premier League, it is inevitable that a considerable number of them actually reside in your constituency.
Indeed, it should be remembered that Everton operate one of the lowest ticketing price structures in the Premier League and the presence of the club in north Liverpool, Walton in particular, offers local people (especially youngsters) one of the most accessible opportunities to watch top flight football in England and we are increasingly active with our distribution of cut-price tickets to local schools.
In an age when, only last week, one of the leading Premier League clubs announced that its lowest season ticket is now £1,000, I believe Everton deserve credit for trying to balance the needs of competitiveness (faced with spiralling transfer fees and player wages) and the desire to ensure attendance at Goodison Park remains accessible to as many supporters as possible.
This is certainly not the case at many English cities ? in London and provincially ? which boast a Premier League club where, sadly, many locals have either been priced out of attendance or find their spectating opportunities hampered by the numbers of season ticket holders, many of whom reside way beyond the boundaries of those clubs in question.
I would have thought that rather than focusing almost entirely on the negative (in your opinion) aspects of Everton?s operation that you would have flagged-up to Baroness Andrews just how proud you are at the resilience of the club at Goodison Park.
I would have hoped that you would view Everton?s provision of accessible Premier League football ? one of the greatest sporting attractions in Europe ? right in the heart of Walton as nothing but a positive to highlight.
Instead, your letter to Baroness Andrews is almost exclusively negative and ignores so many positive attributes that Everton brings to its locale.
Further, may I also say that I found it rather surprising that, particularly as a Labour MP, you clearly seem only to view the social value of Everton in terms of pound signs.
Whilst it may well be true to say that Everton is not the most prosperous club in terms of finance ? a fact of which we are all too well aware ? I would contend that we are one of, if not the, richest club in terms of our social accountability particularly concerning our locality.
Our much lauded study centre, which has been praised in Parliament and by the DfES, has worked closely since inception with local schools on many educationally centred activities, such as reading programmes and IT skills provision.
Furthermore our groundbreaking ?walking bus? scheme for children has rightly received ministerial praise not only for introducing children to healthy alternatives to the norm but also as a case-study example of how football clubs can lead the way in local communities.
Add to this our considerable activity in the area of disabled football, women?s football ? we have one of the most successful teams in England ? and indeed the creation of the Everton Tigers basketball team and you will see that there is much more to Everton Football Club than a Premier League match once a fortnight.
I would go as far to say that the wider structures of Everton FC are among the most socially progressive in England ? and robust enough to withstand the rigours of any audit test ? and I would have thought you would be immensely proud to have the hub of all this right in the heart of your constituency.
You are in fact unique amongst MPs for not only having one but two top-flight English football teams in your constituency and I would ask you, further, to dwell on what an achievement that has been for Everton Football Club in particular.
No other provincial English city has been able to support two top-flight football teams for as sustained a period as the City of Liverpool (now 46 consecutive years since the Liverpool Football Club was last promoted) and the continued presence of Everton at such a level (now 54 years) has often been in spite of the pressures facing us.
Again, I would have thought that rather than focusing almost entirely on the negative (in your opinion) aspects of Everton?s operation that you would have flagged-up to Baroness Andrews just how proud you are at the resilience of the club at Goodison Park.
As a self-confessed Evertonian, you will know how hard it is anyway in this city for Everton Football Club to operate, and we can little do with the good standing of the football club being denigrated in the fashion that you employed in your letter to Baroness Andrews.
Ironically, Everton?s social responsibility towards its local community is one of the chief reasons that we have found it immensely difficult to address the issue of a redevelopment of Goodison Park down the years.
Redeveloping our historic home has always been our preferred option and while it is logistically feasible for us to do so, matters would be that much more easier for us were we to widen our footprint particularly on the Gwladys Street and Bullens Road sides of the stadium.
However, unlike at other clubs, it has never been the policy of Everton Football Club to actively pursue the displacement of local residents and nobody has ever been forced from their home due to our ambitions.
I feel it is most unfair to question the standing of Everton in its community when one of our overriding principles down the years has been a policy of coexistence with our neighbourhood. Nevertheless, it has to be stated, that Goodison Park has been in existence since 1892 ? comfortably prior to the arrival of all local residents ? and the presence of the football club?s activities has always been a known factor for those moving to the area.
Therefore, I again feel that you were presenting a somewhat distorted aspect of reality in your correspondence with Baroness Andrews.
You also say that the club?s impact on the community is ?at best? neutral; and I can only conclude that you think that ?at worst? the club is actually a drain.
This again would be most undeserved and I would actually contend that ? as surely the oldest operating business in your constituency (with Littlewoods Pools having started in 1923) ? the Everton Football Club most definitely does not impact negatively on any other business in the wider scheme of things.
To spin your argument around, the club only activates its full operational capacity less than 30 times a year which is a small percentage of the commercial calendar.
Again, like the scenario which concerns our residential neighbours, it must also be stressed that any business that has opened up in your constituency since 1892 ? the vast majority? ? has known full well of the existence of Everton Football Club on its doorstep and it would seem strange that they would now view this negatively rather than having done so when first considering their commercial location.
I could go on further, Peter, and indeed would invite you personally to visit the club where I could appraise you fully of the wider contribution Everton offers to its local community.
As a final note, though, you have mentioned on local radio, since your letter to Baroness Andrews, that you never thought the King?s Dock project to be a feasible stadium site for Everton.
I do wish that you had conveyed those convictions to me at the time for, as it was, the club spent over three years pursuing that opportunity.
Again, while it may sound churlish of me to upbraid you on so many points given that the chief reason for your letter was to offer your support for the Kirkby Project, I cannot let that gesture, however welcome, eclipse everything else.
Your letter represented a sustained downplaying of Everton Football Club?s wider good standing and as the current custodian (the term I prefer) I could not stand by and let you make so many thinly-veiled attacks.
It is a shame, really, because had you just limited your view to supporting our Kirkby Project I would have recommended the publication of your letter on the club website.
As it is, I would prefer if we keep the nature of your correspondence with Baroness Andrews a matter between ourselves for I certainly would not wish our supporters to see the club denigrated in such a way.
Yours sincerely,
Bill Kenwright
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
Your letter was a brilliant and professional response to the crass statement made by Peter Kilfoyle MP; which is what I would expect from a large multi-million pound organisation - and yet it is so distant from the typical releases from the club itself.
One can only wonder why the club itself is incapable of seeing this problem...
Whether anyone would wish to think otherwise and think the better of Kenwright, the letter that Kilfoyle wrote would have been prompted by the club?s partner, Tesco, and run by the club itself prior to landing on Baroness Andrew?s doorstep.
For my money, Bill Kenwright is every bit as culpable to this attack on the club as the PR team he employs to act in the club?s name. He?s gone along (in a handwringing way, but nevertheless with his blessing) with every undermining utterance concerning ?The Old Lady? and with every demeaning description of the district that has played host to the club for over 116 years.
The Kilfoyle letter would have been ? as one Echo reporter put it on Friday ? "gleefully seized" by Bill and his co-directors.
The model letter of response you made for BK is, as always from you, very entertaining, but nonsensical in the context of his burning desire to shift the club out of Walton.
Sorry to butt in, but the commercial team can't simply be viewed as low-feeders but aloof from the club hierarchy. They are the last chain in command from Bill downwards who determine what to place on the OS which fits in with club policy. Club policy is to attack any alternative to Kirkby and to burn all bridges with the present stadium by rubbishing it and its immediate environs.
Sorry, but for me, this one goes right to Kenwright. The kid-glove treatment with this feller was always wrong and now it is simply unsupportable - as Greg Murphy himself concedes in his foreword.
Greg - a great response. As metioned above, if the fans can produce a measured reasoned rational response, why cant the people paid to do so manage it. The Kilfoyle letter stunt is as low as the cretins running our club have sunk. I hate the fact that I know they will sink lower still...
It is very sad that we find ourselves approaching a new season with all of the present ill will. I was angry about the whole Kirkby debacle at first. Now I just feel sad about it as it has shown the club in a really bad light. It has shown that the current custodian will stoop to any depth to achieve his goal... £££.
How does he sleep at night?
Kenwright is way out of his depth and is surely a puppet figure for Tesco and Wyness to use and abuse. Wyness couldn’t give a toss about anyone but himself and even Ian Ross has shown himself up as having the communication skills of a housebrick.
The ESCLA Q&A session was always going to be interesting, but this time it was truly enlightening. I find it all very sad.
Having worked on local and national newspapers for 17 years i can tell you that I have NEVER had to run an article by the papers owner before printing it, and usually don’t have to show it to the editor. Thats how the world of media works folks.
you are kidding with that analogy aren?t you? Me naive? Doctor, heal thyself.
I assume that the local Labour party is made up of a lot of Evertonians. Would it not be possible to force a vote of no confidence on Killjoy thus forcing a bye-election? Then local Everton supporters would be able to vote him out of office in a direct show of unity in favour of the club.
At the end of the day regardless of pro or anti DK feelings his letter was a slur on our club and we can use it to bring the fan base closer together again.
A wonderful logical and well presented example of how Everton ought to be run. I feel that there is something distinctly unsavoury emanating from EFC, our local MP and KMBC. and yet they all have the temerity to castigate KEOIC.
I hope I’m wrong but it looks to me that a lot of good common sense contributions from many Evertonians, have just been tossed in the bin, while this mad scramble to move to Kirkby at any cost, continues.
At least those contributers who have shown that there are alternatives, can hold their heads up. Kenwright, Killfoyle, supposedly both Evertonians; well I don’t think so.
Indeed, in reading your list of the positive aspects the club has been at the forefront of in the Walton community and greater community itself, it should be proud of who we are and yes, you're right, BK is only a custodian, a fact I think he has lost in the depths of his ego. It's sad to watch a great club turn on itself and use what would be only called a vicious attack on its integrity and value to Liverpool and Walton, for its own ends.
I have metioned and fought on numerous occasions my viewpoint that the board of this club have acted against the interests of the club. They have acted without integrity throughout the whole project, all that they have done now is confirm their incompetance. There can be no forgiveness from my perspective, they knew what they were doing, they themselves have taken our club's proud name and reputation and joined with those who would condenm us, belittle our tradition and have sold their soul for 20 peices of silver.
It was a bad error of judgement, it is one which should join both sides of the fanbase in its condemnation of the running of this club. I have the greatest respect for BKs efforts in taking us from the difficult years. I have absolutely no respect for where he know wants to take us, the utter disregard for our tradition, value and what it means to be an Evertonian.
There is no Yes or No voter to this argument. We are Everton. We may not have a great deal of money but we have a great deal of pride. BK, you managed in your decision to print that letter to devalue that pride and make it open to ridicule within our own city, within our own families. Your endorsement of Peter Kilfoye's letter no longer beggers belief. It was disgusting.
Greg, I guess you put the pride back into our club and made me remember what's at stake. Thank you.
Once the deal is done what was said and who was stabbed in the back are soon forgotten.
History is not wrote by losers.
This is not about being in favour or not of Kirkby. This is about the integrity of our beloved club. It?s a grand old team to support?
Secondly - I cannot believe that ANY right-minded Evertonian can agree with the content of Kilfoyle?s letter, and the OS?s decision to publish it (and indeed herald it as a POSITIVE !!) as they did.
The saddest thing is that I can already hear Bill Kenwright?s response to this when it is (as it almost certainly will be) raised at the upcoming EGM. It will be the exact same response he gave at the last EGM when several shareholders pointed out that our own official website had run the story that "Bill Kenwright will not sell Wayne Rooney - not even for £50 million"... his response was:-
"Oh that bloody website will be the death of me!" said of course with that disarming smile and that "lovable uncle" twinkle in his eye, and of course, it got the laughs he wanted, and he was allowed to move on comfortably.
It?s the same look I?ve seen him give when he says at AGMs and EGMs "I don?t understand balance sheets, me!" in response to tough financial questions, and it?s the same look he will no doubt give in response to ANY question asked about the appalling lack of knowledge about the organisation that he allegedly runs, shown in his responses at the recent ESCLA meeting.
Will "Blue Bill" get away with it AGAIN this time?
Apart from the ’moral’ issue of it being posted on the official site, It was depressing to me that the only real anger about it, or challenge to it’s validity, would come on supporter sites such as this
Not so long back, views such as Kilfoyle’s, would have been seized on by his opponents.
And the piss-weak as the ’arguments’ put forward by the Walton MP would have been savaged with great glee.
Now however, after years of New Labour’s non-politics (anti-politics?), statements are made and any counter-arguments seem to be along the lines of "Mr Kilfoyle may think that" or "He’s entitled to his opinion but.."
These are counter-’points’ only slightly less annoying than the (gibberish, means-nothing) response of "we all need to move on" (the apparently acceptable get-out, of everyone without the wit to think of a counter argument)
There was one sentence in Kilfoyle’s letter that particularly stood out to me, in that it was such an obvious load of shite, that it HAS to to be pointed out (and challenged?) by someone.
PK: "The only businesses effected are fast food outlets and licensed premises - and then only marginally. For most of the season, the club might only play at home once a fortnight"
Now I’m no economics professor, but let’s say you have a chippy that has roughly the same amount of customers each day,
BUT for 18-25 days each year, you have 5 (10?..15??) times a usual day’s custom (nb: queues out the door and up the Street etc)
What do you think would happen to your annual profit if those days are cancelled out?
Exactly, doesn’t take a bleedin’ genius
Yet, almost with a dismissive wave, Kilfoyle states his bollocks and seemingly expects his constituents to fall in line without a harsh word.
Truly in-fuuckin-credible!
That rumbling noise by the way is Eric Heffer spinning in his grave.
Yes it will have an impact on the local traders in the locality - whether that?ll be enough to threaten their exisitence - who knows. As you say it?s 18-25 days per year - if all their businesses are solely relying on match days for survival, then they?re in a precarious position anyway.
But given the choice between a £400M privately funded development scheme in one of the regions most deprived areas & a chippy closing on Goodison Road - not a hard choice really is it.....
I can only assume that the decision really is 50/50 and both parties are trying frantically to get their final word in to push the decision one way or the other.
If things were to go wrong ie it does not get called in, are there any futher options to appeal the decision ?
It?s all well and good having an EGM, but if it?s after the decision has been made can it really change anything ?
I can?t see BK and KW sitting there and suddenly saying "actually you were right all along, we?ll just forget about the whole thing".
Seriously, how can you defend such obvious and total bollocks unless you’re a blood relative?
You say..
"But given the choice between a £400M privately funded development scheme in one of the regions most deprived areas & a chippy closing on Goodison Road - not a hard choice really is it".
Er...not a hard choice for who?
Magnus Pike? Biggles? Fu Manchu?
Surely it depends on who YOU are and where YOU’RE from.
If you’re from Walton for example, I’d suggest the answer to your MP would be along the lines of is "Keep the chippy open in OUR constituency and keep your nose out of the business of other constituencies and let the MP’s in other constituencies do whatever they have to do for THEIR constituents"
(you were right about that bit - not a hard choice at all)
As I understand it, an MP is elected to do the very best he can for HIS constituents - that as I understand it is the only reason people vote for politicians.
The electorate of Walton, I’m fairly sure, didn’t vote for Kilfoyle because they thought he was just the man to regenerate Kirkby.
Your ’this-or-that’ comparison is therefore (in my opinion) nonsense.
As for Bentley driving players in L4 - did you actually read Greg’s letter?
You also quote with confidence that Kilfoyle is right and LCC are wrong regarding money generated by Everton.
The FACT is neither of them (or you) have a fucking clue what is or isn’t generated.
But even if it was £500 and one Job, Kilfoyle should be fighting to keep all the money and all the jobs he can in his constituency.
To have fought so hard for the welfare of another constituency is at best odd and at worst suspicious.
As for Peter Fearns?
Peter, WRITING ON THE TOFFEEWEB WEBSITE says..
"Proof, if it were needed that Toffeeweb is inhabited by cranks with blinkered views and too much time on their hands".
My facial expression is one of confused bafflement but...I’ve nothing to add.
I have been going to Goodison since 1964 and love the place but, let?s face it, it's had its day. If we don?t move now we will not survive in the Premier League. COYB
I was obviously talking from his perspective - as the wider economic benefits to the region - far out weighs the loss to Walton - hence he said what he said.
Maybe he’s capable of rational thought EJ - you ought to try it sometime.
The employees of EFC in Walton can commute to Kirkby. The RS Superdome & the associated plaza that will accompany it - will generate yet more employment for the area
As for the rest of your post - of course the LCC figure of the £50M loss to Walton was bollocks & my comment re: the players & their wages was factual - & yes I did read the letter, which also doesn’t deny that fact.
You say he should fight for his constituency’s rights to even 1 job & £500 - at the expense of any neighbouring borough or what his personal view was? Some society that’d be if every politician in the country took that view.
I’m sure Kilfoyle had his political motives for the letter & I’m not condoning that - I was however defending what he said on the economic aspect of the effect on Walton, as he was correcting a blatant piece of mis-information by LCC.
"We will never have the stadium we deserve if we cannot seize this opportunity"
What on earth are you talking about?? We will never have the stadium we deserve if we move to Kirkby!! Are you telling me that a mid-range, breeze block stadium on a retail park is what a club with our history and tradition deserves??
You must have a very low opinion of the club is all I can say!.
"Toffeeweb is inhabited by cranks with blinkered views and too much time on their hands", followed by "And cut the childish name calling out for Christ?s sake".
Hmmm, pot and kettle come to mind.
"I love the way the the boundaries and figures are altered to attempt to prove a point", followed by "the majority of Evertonians who were entitled to a vote have voted to move".
The majority of Evertonians ENTITLED to vote did NOT vote to move.
"The nonsense spoken on this site is incredible".
Totally agree.
KEIOC
COYB
NIL SATTIS NISI OPTIMUM
Our club is reaching new levels of arrogance and desperation, Sir John is spinning in his grave with Eric Heffer now.
How did it come to this?
"You say he should fight for his constituency?s rights to even 1 job & £500 - at the expense of any neighbouring borough or what his personal view was? Some society that?d be if every politician in the country took that view".
Good point Steve........or rather it would have been if I’d actually said that.
However (AS YOU KNOW!), I didn’t.
Read it again, but this time with someone who can explain all the words.
If you understand English, you will CLEARLY see that what I said is that each MP should look after his/her own constituents in their own constituency.
I did NOT, as you suggest, say MP’s should fight for their constituency ’AT THE EXPENSE of any neighbouring borough’.
See the difference?
You’re fooling nobody (apart from Madden) when you twist what is written to suit your ’argument’.
And by the way, your smokescreen tactic of accusing those who won’t go along meekly with your obvious nonsense as ’ranting’ or not ’rational’ is pitiful, transparent and genuinely desperate.
Fact: (indisputable unless you’re as dumb as a clock) MP’s are elected to fight for THEIR constituents. THAT’S how our political system works.
And guess what - If every MP did this, honestly and to the very best of their ability, we probably WOULD have ’some society’.
Unfortunately we don’t, because too many of them (no names etc) are too busy fighting to get their big fat red faces into the trough and greedily trying to grab as much as they can for themselves.
You began by accusing me of being ’more blinkered than a runner at the national’
Well ignoring the fact that most runners at the National aren’t blinkered, I’ll go along with your badly-thought-out, racehorse-related comparison and say I’d much rather be blinkered than doped.
I repeat, your ’this-or-that’ argument is bogus.
I agreed with Kirkby when it was first proposed, purely cos of the cash. We were told it was a freebie from good old Tezza Leahy at Tesco. Now it seems we have to find anything between £38-78m to help fund it. At nil cost, there?s an argument, as one poster put it - hard nosed business is about cash and getting the right deal. But if we now have to pay for this Tesco Value statdium, I?m back on the re-develop Goodison side, piecemeal if needs be - as cash becomes available - or keep an eye out for a Lpool site.
Greg?s letter says we haven?t tried to displace locals. Can?t we buy them out fair + square? Credit crunch and all that, they?ll be going for a song!!
Cant Blue Ken see that the fans are now 100% against this move.
As for the content - you’re either being deliberately obtuse or you can’t see past the end of your own nose.
By protecting their own constituents even if it was for "1 job & £500" (as you suggested was the role of an MP) - in this case Mr Kilfoyle is taking the view that the £400M regeneration of Kirkby is in the best interests of the Region, as the loss to his constituency is far less than nett gain to the Region should the development take place - hence my comments.
You were suggesting that he should fight tooth & nail against it, as in your world that should be his role - any thought he had of the "greater good" is of no concern apparently. If he took YOUR view, he would be supporting a small loss of income to his own area at the EXPENSE of a neighbouring area’s regeneration - get what I meant now? No - I doubt it - you’ll just come back with another batch of insults - as you’re incapable of reasoned discussion.
So why do you have such a hard time with a legitimate angry response? (in this case to reading you repetitive, uninformed bollocks?)
Isn’t anger JUST as legitimate a response as happiness?
You say..
"you attack any poster with a view that you don?t agree with"
Not true (no matter how much you’d like it to be)
Only those who argue a case in spite of and in the face of the facts and/or an avalanche of contrary evidence.
You then accuse me of being "deliberately obtuse".
Why? Because I dare to point out how weak your ’argument’ is?
You really seem to believe by repeating something three times it comes true.
Example.
"By protecting their own constituents even if it was for "1 job & £500" (as you suggested was the role of an MP) - in this case Mr Kilfoyle is taking the view that the £400M regeneration of Kirkby is in the best interests of the Region, as the loss to his constituency is far less than nett gain to the Region should the development take place - hence my comments"
FFS how many times!
IT - IS - NOT -WHAT -HE -WAS -ELECTED - IN - WALTON - TO BLEEDING - DO.
(’Mr’ Kilfoyle?...a tell?)
Have you ever SEEN Walton?
Do you think it can afford to lose jobs and businesses?
You continue repeating yourself and continue being wrong and again (as if I wasn’t suppose to notice) twist what I ACTUALLY said - again - to suit your jaundiced nonnsense.
You say
"You were suggesting that he should fight tooth & nail against it, as in your world that should be his role - any thought he had of the "greater good" is of no concern apparently. If he took YOUR view, he would be supporting a small loss of income to his own area at the EXPENSE of a neighbouring area?s regeneration - get what I meant now?
"In my world!"?
If he took "my view"?
No not in my world - in THE world.
Here’s how it works.
If (as I’ve explained!!!) every MP does their best in THEIR OWN constituency, we might have a lovely world (full of butterflies and never an angry word).
It really is that simple
So if the Knowsley MP does his best for Knowsley (as that’s his job) and the Walton MP does his best for Walton (as that’s his job), then we can cue Louis Armstrong’s ’Wonderful World’.
(Jesus, ME being obfuckingtuse!!!??)
However problems arise when (as in YOUR world) one MP, instead of looking after his own constituency, starts to shove his fat red kipper into another, thereby neglecting his own.
Now as a system, how hard is that to grasp?
You finish (in the hope I wouldn’t reply?) with..
"No - I doubt it - you?ll just come back with another batch of insults - as you?re incapable of reasoned discussion"
No doubt YOU’LL come back with a load of repetitive shite, that not only deliberately ’misses’ the simplest of points, but that also that attempts to make MISTER Kilfoyle look like a cross between Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela.
For the purpose of clarity - I’ll spell it out in language that you may comprehend. Kilfoyle is a self serving politician - a maggot in my book - my original point was NOT defending his stance on the ENTIRE issue - merely on the point that LCC had completely incorrectly misrepresented the economic loss to Walton - as they’re as fucking bad as he is.
From the economic aspect his view could be defended was my point EJ - as it is beyond question that a) Walton will not be £50M worse off for the loss of EFC as our £50M turnover doesn’t flow into the streets of L4 & b) The region of Merseyside will benefit by a £400M development should Kirkby go ahead
This doesn’t equate to me thinking he’s Nelson Mandela - nor does it mean that agreed with his letter as a whole or the fact that our club chose to put it on the web.
I’m sick of this entire debate & especially the bullshit eminating from the politicians that have been doing nothing but posturing whilst doing FUCK ALL positive throughout this entire pantomime - coming out with soundbites every now & then to feign real interest & make political capitol out of it.
Anyway - I know you’re passionate about this issue & know exactly what your views are - but you belittle your point when you post in such an aggressive & abusive manner IMO - & show complete ignorance & arrogance by attempting to hammer home your point with insults. As unless I’ve got it wrong I thought these threads were meant to generate discussion & an exchange of views - not insults. If that’s not the case then that’s fine - noted for next time.
I disagree.
I believe when discussing Everton-DK and/or fat greedy self-serving politicians, I would belittle my point to use the language of the Vestry.
Steve ? we?re having what is known as a difference of opinion.
And during any difference of opinion, when I think something is ?bollocks? I say ?I think it is bollocks?.
If I think something is a load of shite, I?ll say ?I think it?s a load of shite?
It may not be Keats but it?s clear.
Because I choose to express myself this way, you bitch and moan about ?insults and bile?
However according to you, I have been ?either being deliberately obtuse or you can?t see past the end of your own nose?.
I have also been ?incapable of reasoned discussion?.
And my ?ignorance knows no bounds?
These, unless I’m mistaken are insults (well....they?re certainly not compliments).
You obviously believe your dad?s-letter-writing-style will make you appear more intelligent and/or scholarly and that?s absolutely fine....for you.
But please, pack in the victim bollocks. Your posts, (until the last one) were NOT clear and you defense (YES IT WAS!) of one MP sticking his nose into the constituency of another, while neglecting his own, was/is just plain wrong!
("Look Michael - he’s shouting again!!")
Everybody is entitled to their opinion, thats the idea of having a forum!
disappointed that you all reduce the debate to personal attack.
Nonsense from Evertonians. Behave.
For those posting profanity, remember young children can gain access to this site easily.
Again behave...
As for anything ’Fatty Kilfoyle’ adds his name too, where have you all been for the last twenty years???
The man is a typical politician that band-wagons anything that he thinks keeps him in his position.
If EFC are placing their publicity campaign on the Mr Kilfoyle ticket, then if it flounders, it deserves too.
My experience of being let down by Peter Kilfoyle stretches back to his non-attendance of a meeting in the House of Commons when he promised to assist in gaining Science Park status for the Wavertree Tech Park.
His excuse - food poisoning, when he was in fact seen on the same day showing Chinese tourists around the same building!!!
Everton Forever - Whyness out...
Kilfoyle - swear word in our house.
Top of the Page
Change Mobile Preferences
1 Posted 20/07/2008 at 16:11:51
Report abuse
I think the words 'not in my name' would probably be apt at this time.