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

Peter Kilfoyle - His Response

By Gareth Humphreys :  24/07/2008 :  Comments (30) :
The following is a copy of an email exchange between myself and Peter Kilfoyle yesterday. Make of his response what you will.

GH - Dear Mr Kilfoyle

I write after reading the letter you have sent in support of the proposed move of Everton to Kirkby. I am amazed that the club have even allowed this letter to be published however it just goes to show how desperate they are to win this propaganda war that they allow a letter that basically insults the club and its "at best neutral role".

As an Evertonian you should be ashamed of writing such a letter. Whoever at Goodison Park allowed this to be published should resign as they obviously do not have the club's best interests at heart.

You state that Liverpool City Council have not offered any support to the club. This is surprising when you consider the Kings Dock Proposal that fell down despite Everton's inability to raise the "ringfenced" £35m required to proceed. I am not writing to defend the council however Everton have signed an exclusivity deal with KMBC and Tesco so exactly what can the council do if they are not allowed to enter into negotiation?

There are various other options available - Redevelop Goodison, The Loop site, Walton Hall Park. The only problem is that these options do not have a £52m sweetener on the table from an enabling partner and as such the board are not on for a financial windfall like they most certainly are for Kirkby.

The ballot sold destination Kirkby as a virtually free World Class stadium with superb transport links. It is clearly not the case as the cost to Everton is £78m and counting, the stadium is mid level and the transport infrastructure is a nightmare waiting to happen - so much so that Mr Wyness in his wisdom wants some fans to cycle!!! Dear oh dear.

This situation stinks and I would not want to be in Mr Kenwright's shoes at the EGM for any amount of money.

I am not sure how this situation reflects on you as an MP but as an Evertonian your actions are nothing short of disgraceful.

I do not expect a response to this email because you quite simply can't justify your letter or the move it supports.

PK - It seems as if your grudge is with the club, not me: but remember that in the case of my constituency, my preferred football club does not come into it. Nor do I buy into the council's dismissal of its own failures. I repeat: what are they doing to keep EFC in Liverpool, if that is their aim?

GH - First of all let me thank you for taking the time to respond - it is appreciated.

Like everyone else you are entitled to your opinion on the move. What I feel is wrong is for the board to lie to the fans and for the local MP who supports the club to insult it in the way that you have. Do you not feel that your letter belittled the club that you have presumably supported since childhood?

I don't know what LCC could have done since Dec 06 when the exclusivity deal was signed; however, I am confused why you are worried about what they may or may not be able to offer when you are obviously quite happy for the move to proceed anyway.

Again, your clarification would be appreciated.

PK - I am NOT an Evertonian when I deal with this - just a constituency MP doing what I believe to be the right thing by my constituents. It is business to me, not a personal thing. Incidentally, if anyone looked at what I have said, as opposed to what some people claim that I have said, it would not be a problem. It appears to rankle that I am not doing what is being demanded by principally non-constituent fans. Look at your own letter - "belittled the club". We are talking a football club - not a hospital, a church, or the like. Forgive me if I do not rank professional football as no more than a pastime.

GH - I understand that your job is to look after your constituents and that you can't let your own personal interests impact on a professional decision - no one is expecting you to do so. What you are being is hypocritical - supporting the move on a professional level and then berating the council for allegedly doing nothing to prevent it. You can't have it both ways can you?

Regarding your last comment - you may see Everton as no more than a pastime but I am sure a lot of your constituents will view it with a little more importance.

PK - More the pity for those who place undue emphasis on what essentially remains a game despite its crazy economics. I do not have it both ways - read what I write. There is no other option on the table - fact. The Council have offered no alternative package - fact. The club is a private business - fact. Draw your own conclusions.

GH - Why are you ducking the issue? You are supporting the move on one hand and complaining about the council for not preventing it on the other.

I can understand it if you are supporting it as an MP (if you feel it is the right thing to do for your constituents) and arguing against as an Evertonian but don't try and deny that you are having it both ways with just your MP hat on - your letter printed by your friends at Goodison clearly states your opinion.

There is no other option on the table due to the exclusivity deal - fact. The council are not in a position to offer an alternative due to the exclusivity deal - fact. The club is a private company and due to gross mis-management cannot afford a new ground without an enabling partner - fact.

What these 3 facts have to do with your hypocritical stance though I'm not quite sure.

My conclusion is this: You have given an opinion in your letter both as an MP and as an Evertonian that sits very comfortably with the Board despite it not telling the truth. Both you and the Board of EFC are aware that it does not tell the truth but are more than happy to spin the "no alternative" line despite there being numerous alternatives should the board wish to sit down and talk to anyone. I suspect that the Board's incentive is a pro-rata boost in their share value to the tune of £52m; however, what your carrot is I would not wish to speculate.

What future does Everton have if its Board of Directors and local MP are reluctant to tell the truth to the people who hold this 130-year-old institution very close to their hearts?

PK - Sorry. I'm wasting no more time on this.Try your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

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

Paul Gladwell
1   Posted 24/07/2008 at 15:11:18

Report abuse

Be careful, lads ? the man threatened me with libel in the response I got and it was very amateurish too the way the letter was wrote, think a few people have touched a nerve.
Paul Gladwell
2   Posted 24/07/2008 at 15:19:05

Report abuse

But more fool me and thousands of others who are stupid and get his pity for loving our club.
John Lloyd
3   Posted 24/07/2008 at 15:53:23

Report abuse

What a gobshite, but what did we expect from a politician!!

Who would of thought they’d dodge a question or shit it when pulled up on something they’ve said......or god forbid we suggest they receive backhanders, NO, NOT POLITICIANS!!! Absolute twats the lot of em.......
EJ Ruane
4   Posted 24/07/2008 at 15:56:28

Report abuse

The most insulting thing about politicians generally (and this puddin’ Kilfoyle specifically) is their assumption that you won’t spot that what they are saying, is just a series of words arranged in such a way as to say....absofuckinlutelynothing.

It’s like someone ’answering’ a question by saying "look I think you’re a bit dim, so I’m going to fob you off with some nonsensical bollocks that’ll SOUND like I’ve answered you, but in fact I won’t have"

Insult to injury if you like.
Jay Campbell
5   Posted 24/07/2008 at 16:05:21

Report abuse

Typical of people like himself. When the questions start getting tough and the hole is starting to get bigger and deeper they bottle it and go hiding.

Exactly the same as our Board ? not a backbone in any of them.
Gareth Prytherch
6   Posted 24/07/2008 at 16:13:29

Report abuse

Let?s start with my FACTS.

Everton Season Ticket Holder; Born and Bred in Walton in view of the Old Lady; Voted For Kirkby... Now not so sure. My preferred option has always been to redevelop GP. Peter Kilfoyle was my local MP for as long as I can remember; Parents still live in view of GP. I have never voted for Peter Kilfoyle and nor would I as he has done nothing but oversee the downfall of L4.

Now someone, somewhere needs to clear up where people are thinking because as far as I can see there are many things being confused in various arguments.

The reality as far as I can see is that Peter Kilfolye?s letter is largely true. The local people get very little if any positive benefits from the club. The only economic benefits are for the few fast food outlets (more and more owned by the club) and the pubs.

From a political point of view Everton moving out of Walton would create a void that LCC would have to deal with all of the current redevelopment will have negative impact as it is as more people will shop at Project Jennifer site, Liverpool One and DK!!!!

The exclusivity agreement ran out before the planning permission went in and if LCC really wanted to KEIOC then they could have done much more than they have.

Any Star Wars fan will tell you that there is no "try" ? there is simply "do" or "don?t do". Cllr Warren Bradley?s attempts to keep the club in the city falls comfortably into the latter. I wonder if this has anything to do with the fact that NWDA said a couple of years ago that they would not financially support two stadia and LFC got in there first.

Rant over, the worst thing we can do is fight each other and we should all start by accepting that whoever turns out to be right or wrong, all blues fans are only doing what they believe to be right.

Peter Howard
7   Posted 24/07/2008 at 16:40:38

Report abuse

Well said, Gareth.
Peter Laing
8   Posted 24/07/2008 at 16:57:09

Report abuse

Guys you seem suprised... this is from the guy who witch-hunted the left wing of the local labour party during the 1980s, a party branded as militant merely for having the balls to stand up to Thatcherism, cuts and the piss poor opposition of Neil Kinnock. His reward, well a nice safe seat in the Labour strong hold of Walton where you could put a Monkey in a red rosette and he would still get in. The parallel with Everton ? all to familiar and sold down the river.
Mick Gallagher
9   Posted 24/07/2008 at 18:28:12

Report abuse

I have also had some replies from him. The one answer that I'm still waiting for is, why moving to the Kings Dock would have been bad for Walton, but moving to Kirkby is not. Probably struggling with the emails that the comments have caused.
Richard Harris
10   Posted 24/07/2008 at 19:11:26

Report abuse

Peter Laing wrote " a Monkey in a red rosette".

Don’t disrepect the monkey - I have it on very good authority that he’s our first summer signing :0)
Neil McKinney
11   Posted 24/07/2008 at 20:05:38

Report abuse

Well said Gareth Prytherch!

Many people talk of "The majority of Evertonians" and claim that they support their side of the argument, but I think that fans like you are more than likely the majority. Wishing the best for your club and supporting it through thick and thin.

Whether we move to Kirkby or not, the day will still be long, the night will still be dark, politicians will still talk bollocks, and I will still support EFC.

Neil Adderley
12   Posted 24/07/2008 at 23:45:31

Report abuse

Gareth Prytherch - One of many of your points that need to be put right;

?The exclusivity agreement ran out before the planning permission went in.?

There is no other way to break the bad news except to say you are WRONG. The exclusivity agreement was and is still being enforced; by law.

Remember ?the mile posts? statement regarding said ?exclusivity agreement? by Bill Kenwright...............he lied.

Karl Masters
13   Posted 25/07/2008 at 00:27:58

Report abuse

That’s right, Neil Adderley. In fact the Exclusivity agreement was supposed to run for 6 months!!! KW and BK both said it at the start.

Downright lies.

It’s gonna last until either the thing is built or Everton decide to pull out. If it’s called in and we do pull out, I suspect we’ll be paying hefty fees to Tesco & KMBC as part of effectively breaking the agreement.

Would explain the transfer inactivity to some degree.

Another fine mess, Stanley!
Neil Pearse
14   Posted 25/07/2008 at 01:01:56

Report abuse

Not at all impressed by Kilfoyle?s reponses, but Gareth?s original piece has the usual fundamental flaws of the No position.

The exclusivity agreement is largely irrelevant. The major problem is that Everton FC cannot afford to build any new stadium (if indeed they can afford to build Kirkby) without major support. No stadium in Liverpool could possibly come close to the cost of the Tesco supported Kirkby. This is the fundamental factor at play. The exclusivity agreement is simply a consequence of this. If it wasn?t there, we still couldn?t afford any new ground in Liverpool.

Secondly, football clubs like other businesses are valued on the net present value of future cash flows (NOT on asset values). If moving to Kirkby makes Bill?s shares go up, this is because Kirkby makes the club as a whole more valuable. It cannot logically be that Kirkby is a financially bad move for the club but Bill will make a killing (unless there is some idiot out there who likes to waste their money and doesn?t understand basic finance).

I am a supporter of Kirkby as is well known on this site. But I think there are plenty of reasons to be against it (it might kill the spirit of the club, people won?t go, there will be major transportation problems etc. etc.). But not these reasons because they are simply confused and wrong.

Gareth Humphreys
15   Posted 25/07/2008 at 08:38:32

Report abuse

Neil, I understand your view on this but do you honestly think that £52m worth of land as an assett on the balance sheet is not going to affect the clubs worth ?

Peter Lee
16   Posted 25/07/2008 at 09:13:52

Report abuse

"The exclusivity agreement is largely irrelevant. The major problem is that Everton FC cannot afford to build any new stadium (if indeed they can afford to build Kirkby) without major support. No stadium in Liverpool could possibly come close to the cost of the Tesco supported Kirkby. This is the fundamental factor at play. The exclusivity agreement is simply a consequence of this. If it wasn?t there, we still couldn?t afford any new ground in Liverpool."

Sorry but I beg to differ on this point, we may be getting a chunk of change out of the retail development in Kirkby and this would need to be true of any other site we chose to investigate. However, with the exclusivity agreement in place we cannot even take a proper look at other sites which come up to see what may or may not be on offer to the club from enabling developments.

Additionally, if it is true that we absolutely need the £52 million at a minimum which we are reportedly getting in Kirkby, how have we been able to take the hit on rising costs of construction for a project such as this?

I suspect there is a third leg to the Kirkby deal which isn?t in the public domain and it probably relates to the club's ability to finance our portion of the deal. I suspect there is an Everton backer who has his finger in the Kirkby pie and who is going to help the club secure the debt we will be encumbered with. Could be wrong about this of course and it is pure speculation but I think there is more to this than has been laid out thus far .

Barry Kingham
17   Posted 25/07/2008 at 13:43:31

Report abuse

Essentially, PK sees football as a bunch of fellas running round a park and getting paid a lot of money for doing it. Is he right? Probably. Thats why hes not really bothered if EFC leaves his constituency.

Problem is, we’re all tied up in emotion which means little in terms of the economic activities within his constiuency. We can talk the ’football is our lives’ talk all we want, but it means little to an outsider who puts little value in the sport.
Neil Pearse
18   Posted 26/07/2008 at 09:04:21

Report abuse

Gareth, would you pay more for something because it had a £50M asset on its books that was completely illiquid and unrealisable? Of course you wouldn?t. Nobody is buying Everton to sell the ground. So the fact that the club has a £50M asset on its books that it didn?t pay for will not affect what someone will pay for the club.

What creates value out of Kirkby is that we increase revenues at relatively low investment cost (getting a brand new stadium for net increased borrowings of around £50M really is a fantastic deal). But the club only becomes more valuable if the revenues actually go up more than the investment cost. Asset valuation has nothing to do with it.

Peter - I agree and disagree. I agree (and have repeatedly posted) that I believe it very likely that securing Kirkby will secure major new investment through a change of ownership of the club. I certainly hope so!

I completely disagree about the exclusivity agreement. The unpalatable reality is that the club looked at other options around the city (there aren?t many) before going in with Knowsley and Tescos, and determined (no doubt accurately in my opinion) (a) that there were none that came close to the financial deal offered by Kirkby, and (b) no others that we could even remotely afford. It would be nice to believe that we could afford to build a world class stadium in the city of Liverpool. But we can?t.
Neil Adderley
19   Posted 26/07/2008 at 13:52:39

Report abuse

Peter Kilfoyle - ’Try your conspiracy theories elsewhere.’

When is a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory?

This from Warren Bradley in his response to Kilfoyle has left me curious to know just how long and in what capacity has Peter Kilfoyle been involved in the relocation of Everton Football Club from out of his Walton constituency and into the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley?

"I am aware the only dialogue you have had locally has been with the former Chief Executive (Sir David Henshaw) of Liverpool City Council when you apparently gave your blessing to the scheme some years ago."

Given that Peter Kilfoyle has not (yet) offered a rebutal to the above statement, leaves no option but to take it as read that this meeting between Kilfoyle and the then CEO of LCC (and former Knowsley CEO) Sir David Henshaw, in which Peter Kilfoyle ’gave his blessing’ for the relocation of EFC, did actually take place.

Warren Bradley states this meeting took place ’some years ago,’ which, given Peter Kilfoyle’s attacks on LCC within his recent letter to Baroness Andrews including this;

"Despite a great deal of hot air, there is no viable assistance from Liverpool City Council to assist Everton within their city boundaries."

and his ’blessing of the scheme’ given to the then CEO of LCC ’some years ago,’ once again begs many a question;

Just how long and in what capacity has Peter Kilfoyle been involved in the relocation of Everton Football Club from his Walton constituency and into the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley?

Also, what was Peter Kilfoyle’s motivation for meeting with Henshaw? Why did he feel the need to personally inform the then CEO of LCC that he backed the relocation of Everton FC to Knowsley? What was it he was hoping to obtain from Henshaw? Some kind of reassurance from LCC? If Kilfoyle came away with what he was looking for from Henshaw, to whom were those reassurances to be delivered? Who else did Peter Kilfoyle meet with ’some years ago regarding the relocation of EFC to Knowsley?’

Just what role was/is Peter Kilfoyle playing in the relocation of EFC?

I severly doubt that their is any public record of this meeting between Kilfoyle and Henshaw - certainly no official minutes anyway.............Oh to have been a fly on the wall though eh?

Peter Kilfoyle’s motivation for lobbying for the removal of Everton FC out of his constituency of Walton, alongside the extent of his involvement in said relocation, needs to be severly questioned. His letter to that end, crassly published on Everton FC’s official website, may have opened the door for that questioning to begin. Whether we as concerned Evertonians get the answers is a another matter but as the old saying goes;

’The truth will out.’
David Kiely
20   Posted 26/07/2008 at 15:37:41

Report abuse

Neil -

I think it?s very important to establish the timeline of Peter Kilfoyle?s involvement in the stadium issue as it pertains to Kirkby. Kilfoyle has indicated that he is not speaking on behalf of anyone else but his own constituents and in a reactive rather than proactive manner. This is clearly suggested by Mr Kilfoyle in his own words in his published letter to Baroness Andrews - "Like many others, I take a view on the proposal". Clearly, given Warren Bradley?s statement of Kilfoyle?s apparently deeper involvement with the proposed ground move to Kirkby, this claim to be merely looking on from the sidelines rings a little hollow.

I, for one, feel that the confusion surrounding the full extent of the MP for Walton?s involvement in the ground move should be addressed and dispelled.
Neil Pearse
21   Posted 26/07/2008 at 16:32:55

Report abuse

Why are we obsessed with personalities all the time? Kilfolyle has now been added to the ’demons den’ with Wyness and Kenwright. How is this helpful?

I don’t particularly like the man, but the reasons why Kilfolye is supporting Kirkby are blindingly obvious. His constituents will benefit more from a massive retail development right next door than by continuing to have Everton in Walton. Especially as LFC are about to initiate a massive new development in his constituency anyway.

There really is no sinister conspiracy to investigate. It is exactly the same as the support of the club for moving to Kirkby. It’s because it is very plausibly an excellent and unrepeatable financial deal for a new stadium. It’s that simple.

Lots of reasons to disagree and to be against DK. But could we PLEASE quit all the sinister conspiracy theories?
Colin Fitzpatrick
22   Posted 26/07/2008 at 17:02:25

Report abuse

David Kiely - Very astute reply and questions raised David, would you be interested to know that Mr Kilfoyle was representing interests other than his constituents as far back as January 2006 at which time he was advocating the involvement of Tesco in Knowsley. Warren Bradley knows this hence the reference in his response to Kilfoyle?s embarrassing letter to Baroness Andrews and Kilfoyle?s subsequent deafening silence as he realises that the cat is well and truly out of the bag and those with their noses in the trough are threatened to be exposed.

Neil Pearse ? you write some amazing stuff on here, it?s a good job you haven?t a clue what is really going on; when the truth dawns your face will be a picture.
David Kiely
23   Posted 26/07/2008 at 17:14:45

Report abuse

Neil Pearse -

no conspiracy, mate. I think if an elected member of Parliament comes out so forcefully for a project that will affect the lives of tens of thousands of people, then we have a perfect right to be confident that their opinion is exactly that: opinion (or, as he prefers, ?viewpoint?) and that his words are not part of a long running and concerted campaign to plough on - to the detriment of our club - with one development to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

Clearly, the words of Warren Bradley undermine our confidence that this is the case.
David Kiely
24   Posted 26/07/2008 at 17:29:53

Report abuse

Colin Fitzpatrick -

Sadly, that information pretty much confirms my fears that Warren Bradley?s statement (as you say, without reply) might be indicative of a greater level of involvement by Kilfoyle than a mere concerned onlooker to events as they unfolded. I have to say, I?m quite staggered that this involvement goes back to the date you mention.

It?d certainly be interesting to hear the MP?s own take on this - should he be minded to challenge the claim made by Warren Bradley based on the above information.
Colin Fitzpatrick
25   Posted 26/07/2008 at 18:19:55

Report abuse

David, you would, I would and the standards commission would but I wouldn?t hold your breath just yet!
Neil Adderley
26   Posted 26/07/2008 at 18:33:39

Report abuse

Obviously (and as has been pointed out, without response) Warren Bradley has fired a shot across the bows with his revelation regarding a meeting between Kilfoyle and Henshaw in January 2006 - as David Kiely says, that statement by Bradley is out in the public domain for Kilfoyle to challenge.

The question earlier asked about why Peter Kilfoyle has chosen to enter this issue at such a late stage may well have to be re-written;

Just how long and in what capacity has Peter Kilfoyle been involved in the relocation of Everton Football Club from his Walton constituency and into the Metropolitan Borough of Knowsley?
Neil Pearse
27   Posted 26/07/2008 at 20:18:03

Report abuse

Colin, I actually will agree you with you on one thing you said.

If ’the truth’ turns out to be that Kenwright and Wyness lied and moved the club to Kirkby simply to line their own pockets (when other viable options in the city were perfectly available); that in order to maintain the ’Kirkby plot’ Kenwright was turning away serious investors who wanted to buy the club and invest in it so that it could stay in the city; that the plot was aided and abetted by MP Kilfolyle who also had his hand in the till; and that all were ultimately manipulated and funded by Terry Leahy, who godfather like was bribing all and sundry so that Tesco got a huge new retail outlet in Knowsley...

Yes, you are right! When this ’truth’ (as preached by such as you) finally emerges - my face will indeed be a picture. I will indeed me very surprised. But somehow I think it more likely that the moon is made of green cheese.
Colin Fitzpatrick
28   Posted 26/07/2008 at 21:52:25

Report abuse

Neil, entertaining as ever, that?s an unwarranted and disgraceful slur on Terry Leahy; I for one have never said anything about the man, but if you feel that you have to exaggerate in order to augment your naive belief in everything the board of Everton proclaim then so be it, you?ll be telling me next that their explanations about the Kings Dock, NTL, the sale of Wayne Rooney and the Fortress Sports Fund saga were all perfectly feasible and that, with your childlike trust, you believe that Robert Earl really bought his shareholding. Nothing personal Neil but it?s about time you and a few others opened their eyes to what goes on, here?s a nice little piece from The Guardian that should focus your attention: but of course that would never happen at Everton?????would it? Green cheese anyone?????
Neil Verdin
29   Posted 27/07/2008 at 20:48:37

Report abuse

Neil Pearse,
Would you not agree that if the personalities involved (Wyness, Kenwright, Kilfoyle etc) answered the allegations repeatedly made, then there would be no ?conspiracy theories??

Coincidentally, I am not talking about the things any business should keep private (available funds etc) but rather pertinent points such as shady meetings (I bet without minutes), length of time involved in discussons, transport links, quality of stadia etc? But I am sure it will all come out in the wash and we will be able to laugh about these differences in opinion as we are cycling to and from the game (probably a 5 - 0 derby victory in front of a packed 78,000 crowd in an extended stadium now on a par with the New Wembley). Billy Two-Tongues and Mr Lieness wont let us down... will they???

Karl Masters
30   Posted 27/07/2008 at 21:27:56

Report abuse

Colin Fitpatrick:
A fascinating read in your link above regarding Ken Bates and his not so transparent dealings at Chelsea. Proof that if you are clever enough you can hide almost anything.

Remarkably, though, the best is saved till last. Leeds United is owned by.... The Fortress Sports Fund!!! Maybe he hijacked the Everton deal, or maybe he and BK are part of something far more .... surprising shall we say?

© ToffeeWeb

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.