Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In  |  Sign Up
FAN ARTICLES

The Trial of Bill Kenwright

By David Wilson :  12/11/2010 :  Comments (188) :

?The evidence before the court is, incontrovertible there's no need for the jury to retire?  ? Lyrics from the Pink Floyd seventies rock opera The Wall.

When Colin Fitzpatrick followed up his recent epic I`m more concerned about Everton with Kenwright & EFC ? a Response to Comments, I couldn?t help but be reminded of the iconic Floyd track ?The Trial?.  I could almost hear the mood-setting clarinet, the Jail doors slamming as I scrolled down the many posts.

Some ToffeeWeb regulars proclaimed it the definitive argument, some even claimed it simply couldn?t be countered. Bill Kenwright was Guilty!!! ... no need for the jury to retire. I never cease to be amazed at the collective knowledge the contributors of this site have accumulated down the years, there's always somebody who can tell you something you didn?t know.

Anyway, I was convinced somebody would come along and counter a lot of Colin's points.  Every time I have logged on I've expected a ?Case for the defence? but there doesn?t seem to be any takers.  I'm really disappointed nobody has stepped up to the plate, but if I'm honest I think the REAL reason I didn?t step forward is because I realised how daunting a task it would be; Colin's article was a block buster, the detail, historical content, presentation... it had the lot.

Before I go any further, I'd like to make something very clear: I'm not somebody who blindly toes the party line. I've watched Everton for nearly 50 years and although I prefer to discuss playing matters, I have not been blind to what's gone on behind the scenes. I`m not one of life`s sensitive souls either, so if you disagree, feel very free to swarm all over my points...

In his article, Colin blames two people for the club?s current predicament, he names them: Moyes and Kenwright ? and although he admits apportioning blame can sometimes be counter-productive, he felt that only by identifying the root cause of our problems, can solutions be found... I couldn?t agree more, but it was in identifying the root cause of our problems that I felt Colin's article started to unravel? despite the length of his diagnosis, I felt it was a little simplistic.  It was as if he had totted up every mistake made by the club since the eighties and laid them at Kenwright's door.

When Colin began telling us about what Kenwright was getting up to in a London hotel after the Cup Final, even though he was half way up the M1 at the time, I think it?s fair to say most people would have realised this wasn?t going to be the most balanced article... and by slamming Kenwright`s childish, but hardly offensive claims that he was at the 1966 FA Cup Final with Eddie Kavanagh, I felt he was really setting the tone for his article ? and subsequent thread.

Colin was/is a member of KEIOC and I believe a shareholder ? apologies if I'm wrong on that one.  He witnessed close-hand what the rest of you view from a distance: lack of respect, lack of co-operation and perhaps most damning of all, downright dishonesty; his dislike/contempt for the chairman is understandable?  But here's my problem: in his desire to expose and eventually see the back of him, I believe there is a real danger that he is rewriting history.  Yes, his article was box office, the whole thread was riveting, I don?t think I've seen such emotion stirred up by a single article, anywhere... but as I scrolled down each post, I couldn?t shake the feeling that Kenwright's enemies had been waiting for this moment and that fact was soon giving way to unsubstantiated claim.

To form a balanced accurate view of Kenwright's Reign, you have to go back to the beginning of it.  Colin claimed Everton's decline coincided with the arrival of Kenwright; technically, that?s true, but in my view it?s unjust and untrue and misleading to suggest that, because he was here, he's to blame.  Kenwright can't be held responsible for the mismanagement of the club in the early nineties ? other more senior members of the board were calling the shots.  And it was during this period that Evertonians experienced the rudest of awakenings. In the blink of an eye, the club had gone from being one of the best teams in Europe to perennial relegation fighters.

Many Evertonians claimed ? still do ? that our decline was the direct result of the behaviour of kopite thugs in Belgium? who knows?  It may have been a contributory factor, but after making the mistake of thinking our greatest ever coach could be a manager, the hierarchy ? namely Sir Philip Carter, Dr David Marsh and later Peter Johnson ? were to go on to have their limitations well and truly exposed.  Top players were being replaced by journeymen.

Everton Football Club spent the next few seasons stumbling around the ropes like a battered boxer.  It was a minor miracle we didn?t actually hit the canvas ? could we have ever gotten back up if we had?  Only a combination of heroics from stalwarts like Dave Watson, rank bad refereeing, and good old-fashioned poxy luck enabled us to maintain our Premier League status.  These were dark, dark days, although there was SOME good news ? at least the board didn?t lie to us.  When asked about putting a second tier on park end, Sir Philip simply told us we didn?t warrant it. The fucking cheek! He didn?t think we were worth it?

The mismanagement continued; that Mr Johnson was able to purchase a controlling interest for as little as £10 million merely underlined that.  He was a kopite, but hey, beggars can?t be choosers; he was going to splash the cash, wasn?t he?   Well? yes, he was ? but not his own.

To give credit where it?s due, we did win the FA Cup under his stewardship, but that couldn?t mask the fact that his reign was yet another disaster.  How those fuckers across the park laughed as we continued to court relegation, he'd already blown it with big Joe, promises of world class managers only deepened the embarrassment.

Johnson was unpopular from the start; his red connections hadn?t helped and he was yet another who showed little or no respect for the Evertonian.  He once boasted he had turned down offers from Joe Lewis... boasted??? ? Funnily enough, when asked about this, Lewis had no knowledge of it.  Johnson was a slippery character, but by trying to go behind Walter Smith?s back to sell Duncan Ferguson, he came badly unstuck.  Walter was on to him, he and his agent showed Johnson a Glaswegian version of Find the Lady.  There was no way back for the kopite.

Bill Kenwright's starting position as Everton's chairman was desperate.  In the years leading up to his reign, Everton's fortunes on and off the pitch hadn?t just taken a turn for the worse... they'd fallen off a fucking cliff!  Turning things around was always going to be a monumental task, any steps in the right direction were going to be small ones.  That said, many would argue that throughout Kenwright's reign Everton have suffered considerably more disasters than triumphs... let?s take a look.

For years now, I have refused even discuss the Kings Dock. I have to admit, I only have to think about it and I could fucking weep, but it?s impossible to pen this piece without addressing it. Kenwright's behaviour throughout these negotiations has been well documented, ask any Evertonian and they will tell you it was his fuckaroundary that eventually killed the dream? but one or two other things bother me about the Kings Dock saga.

Paul Gregg has for some time now been portrayed as some sort of Martyr? the ? victim? ? but was he really?  I never quite got that ?reverse mortgage? lark, we could either raise the money or we couldn?t, what was wrong with doing things the conventional way?  Shortly after Gregg was claiming he'd found £15 million quid to invest into the club, he claimed Lord Grantchester would be the provider! That little snippet was news to Lord Grantchester, who felt compelled to issue the following denial:

?I`m a lifelong Evertonian and share all Evertonians' disappointment at seeing our great club failing to compete at the highest level, but it is NOT the case that I am behind Mr Gregg?s proposals to underwrite funds for the club and, indeed, I have not seen Mr Gregg?s proposal? ? you couldn?t make it up!

One thing we can gather from this little saga is that Gregg was hardly playing with a straight bat either.

Then there's Lord ? life-long Evertonian ? Grantchester himself; why not secure the deal by making a healthy contribution to the £30 million we needed to fund the KD?  If he didn?t consider it from a fan point of view, surely he could have seen it as a good investment?

Something else always nags me when ground improvement / movement is discussed.  When the old Park End was dismantled at the beginning of the nineties, did EFC not pass up THE opportunity to keep Goodison abreast of other grounds?  I`m no stadium expert so I stand to be corrected on this, but was it not a golden opportunity to move the pitch towards Stanley Park?

I can?t remember if any the houses on Goodison Avenue where still there, but even if they were, surely that could have easily been overcome.  If Sir Philip and Dr David had shown the foresight of others, could ground capacity not have been raised to about 46,000?  Maybe those ridiculously obstructed views in the Lower Bullens could have been converted into corporate facilities, this would have cost an absolute pittance in comparison to what it would cost today and may have provided the necessary income to bring the rest of the ground into the 21st century ? maybe even attract an investor!  I really would love to hear the views of one of TW's stadium experts on this?

Bill Kenwright is often accused of selling the family silver to survive, but these assets everyone keeps talking about, what are they?  Would their value be enough to cover the costs of Big Vic`s medical bill?

I can almost hear people screaming "Finch Farm!" But isn?t that an asset we acquired on BK`s watch anyway? Everton were desperate for a new state-of-the-art training facility and we got one; we couldn?t afford to develop it ourselves so we sold the land for over £2 million to a company who could... does that not make sense? And wasn?t there a buy-back clause put into the terms of the sale?

When Bellefield is eventually sold, who?s to say the club won?t exercise their right to buy Finch Farm?

It could be argued that, rather than let all the clubs assets slip through their fingers, Everton under BK have actually accumulated more. Everton have never had such a valuable squad; the chairman could wipe out the debt tomorrow by ordering the sale of Rodwell, Fellaini, Jagielka, Arteta, Baines and Bily.  Let?s face it, he could replace them with journeymen and Moyes would still probably keep them in the top flight. We could sell Jack Rodwell tomorrow and buy Finch Farm, but who the fuck would want that?

It could be argued that, rather than frittering away our pitifully modest assets under BK`s stewardship, the club has merely transferred them to the place we all want them to be... on the pitch!

And so to Kirkby. I still remember the relief I felt when I arrived at Hull and was told plans to move there had been knocked back. We may have been mauled by the tigers, but I got the first decent sleep I'd had in months that night.

The following day, relief had subsided and the anger I'd felt throughout the entire DK period was back, with a vengeance.  Anger directed at Kenwright: he'd allowed himself to be played like a fiddle and was in turn trying to do the same to us.  Anger at the Spurs supporters (Green & Earl) who now seemed to be welding far too much power even though they didn?t give a flying fuck about our club; anger at Wyness; anger at Elstone who continued to treat us as idiots by spouting pro-Kirkby shite even when it was obvious to the most ardent pro-Kirkby fan that this half-baked, half-witted plan could never work.

I think most of my anger was reserved for Sir Terry Leahy, ?Tesco Terry? another ?lifelong Evertonian? he abused his Evertonian credentials when he cynically stepped into the debate on the eve of the ballot and persuaded enough of the undecided that voting Yes was the only way forward.  I will never forgive these people for trying to take my club out of my city.

Bill Kenwright ? by his own admission ? isn?t and never will be the ideal chairman to take our club forward; he lacks the necessary financial clout.  The company he keeps and the people he listens to can be a best described as untrustworthy ? and if he chops down your cherry trees, don?t expect him to come clean, but he isn?t the only ?culprit? here.  That?s my problem: I'm not even sure the right character is getting assassinated anymore. If I had to agree with any of the posts on Colin?s thread, I guess it would be Ken Buckley's.

Before the next public stoning, it may well be worth remembering that Bill Kenwright took on our club when we were in free-fall; nobody else wanted to know.  Since he has been at the helm, we have gone from being relieved to avoid relegation, to being disappointed if we have not qualified for Europe.  Our football is infinitely better, we are training at state-of-the-art facilities and (whether you want him or not) we have one of the most coveted managers in the game looking after the team.

If you cant find it in your heart to put down that stone, you might at least want to consider throwing a smaller one.

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


Christine Foster
1   Posted 12/11/2010 at 05:32:25

Report abuse

David, your comments are not a counter to the detail Colin Fitzparick held up as a case for the prosecution, it was more of a plea of mitigating circumstances.

In itself you are correct in highlighting that, along with Kenwright and indeed probably before his tenure, Everton Football Club was poorly managed by a board that failed to commercially appreciate the impact of the Premier League. I have said this before and I firmly believe that there are other board members as well as Kenwright that must share that responsibility.

However, Kenwright has been responsible for Kings Dock, Kirkby, the gagging of shareholders, abolition of AGM, and all the associated implications of each, so well documented in the media and by Colin, It happened on his watch and he is ultimately responsible for success and failure.

What is and always has been unclear are the motives behind many of the decisions taken by BK; who, if anyone, was pulling the strings... and why he has never seen fit to rebuke or defend his actions. His contempt for fans and their concerns, however, is well documented.

His obvous foot-in-mouth comments are from a fan, but his actions as chairman speak more of a cynical self-interest.

His 24/7 approach to investment / buyer has yet to be explained, detailed or even stated as to exactly what such terms would be.

Lastly, the only person who could ever mount a defense against the prosecution is Bill Kenwright himself. That's unlikely to be addressed anytime soon, funny though, if you go to trial and refuse to make a statement it can now be held against you.

Sadly the credibility of Bill's statements mean that, even with the best intentions, he has made some serious blunders that in most companies would result in the resignation or removal of the culprit AND the overall person in charge.

But then this is Everton. The reason so many of us find it hard to swallow that Bill is blameless are the facts that we do know. The statements he has made. The treatment he has given to the fans and shareholders of this club.

Actions speak louder than words. BK may be out of his depth in running Everton FC, many of you would disagree pointing to the fact that we are performing better on the pitch, but commercially we have to look not just at next weeks game but where we will be in 3 years from now. On that basis, decisions and planning based on the commercial performance and personal decision-making of BK to date leave me worried for our very future in the Premier League.
Michael Brien
2   Posted 12/11/2010 at 07:20:46

Report abuse

When Peter Johnson's bid to take over Everton was successful I can't recall too many voices of dissent amongst Evertonians. If people are going to look for reasons why we are not in the same "financial league" as some of the other clubs I think it is far too simplistic an answer to say "Bill Kenwright". He didn't exactly inherit a smooth running operation did he?

We seem to have forgotten some of the dire decisions that were made by Mr Johnson. The sale of Duncan Ferguson without the knowledge of the Manager Walter Smith and the contravening of FA rules by retaining an interest in Tranmere Rovers ? which nearly resulted in our being banned from the FA Cup for a season, to name but two.

They say that the grass always looks greener on the other side. Over recent years we haven't been able to compete financially with Liverpool ? but as the truth has emerged about Liverpool's owners Hicks & Gillet would we really have wanted people like that owning our club? In the summer the anti-Kenwright lobby pointed to the impending takeover of Blackburn and the promise of £100M transfer budget for big Sam. Funny... whatever happened to that one?

Only today we can read of Chelsea "sacking" (which is what they have actually done) Ray Wilkins. This was done apparently without the knowledge/approval of Ancellotti, who was basically told it was going to happen whether he agreed or not.

It's all very well having mega rich owners ? but be careful what you wish for is my message.
Ged Simpson
3   Posted 12/11/2010 at 08:37:08

Report abuse

Christine

"His contempt for fans and their concerns, however, is well documented."

Perhaps David is pointing out that assumptions like that are the problem.

If I write Black is White 200 times and 3000 others also write it, it becomes "well documented".

But accurate?
Richard Dodd
4   Posted 12/11/2010 at 08:44:26

Report abuse

Thank you, David, for putting the case for the defence. Had the trial taken place in Scotland, the verdict would obviously have come in `not proven`. Yes, like us all, BB has his faults but to be labelled a 24/7 offender when he has kept the Club in a sustainable state for so long is way over the top. Long may he reign!
Eric Myles
5   Posted 12/11/2010 at 09:02:47

Report abuse

Your 'defence' of BK seems to be purely to attack Gregg and Johnson. Sort of like the 'defence' of OJ Simpson was to attack the cop that arrested him.

Why not address Colin's points one by one and refute them rather than a general ramble?

Brian Waring
6   Posted 12/11/2010 at 09:05:36

Report abuse

David, it just sounds like a final submission in court, to try and make out that Bill isn't all that bad, and it's other peoples fault; thing is, he would still get the maximum sentence allowed.

Before I got to the end of your piece, I was half expecting to find "He's a true blue" as your finale.

You said that you were waiting for someone to come with a "Case for the defence" ? For me, mate, I'm still waiting.
Stephen Kenny
7   Posted 12/11/2010 at 09:31:33

Report abuse

David, I look forward to your next article when you add some detail to your many assumptions and misnomers.

Regards,

Steve
Ernie Baywood
8   Posted 12/11/2010 at 09:30:22

Report abuse

Eric, not sure that's what David has done. Similarly I'm not sure that's what OJ did? Why would he need to refute each point? He's talking about Kenwright ? not Colin. This isn't debating club.

Brian. The "I was half expecting to find "He's a true blue" as your finale" line is the new "You sound like a kopite".

It's an interesting read that might just provide some balance to the common opinion that BK is the reason that we are where we are.

Play the ball, not the man.
Eric Myles
9   Posted 12/11/2010 at 09:50:34

Report abuse

Ernie, that's exactly what OJ did, and any defence should refute the points Colin made about BK, or are you being deliberately obtuse?
Kevin Tully
10   Posted 12/11/2010 at 09:38:29

Report abuse

Is BK capable of operating the club to its full potential? ? No.

Can BK invest his own money for transfers? ? He hasn't got any.

Has he got the vision for a new stadium in Liverpool? ?Clearly, there are no plans for a new stadium...

Do I think all of the above are killing us as a club? ? No. Our league positions are what counts, and based on expenditure, we are doing well. We all want the billionaire, or real money at the club. We are greatly respected by most other clubs, and we are improving.

The current board are like the walking dead, they are plainly treading water. They must also carry some of the blame as well as BK.

Until someone can prove we have had a real and tangible offer from the RIGHT person for EFC, I think we should try to keep our young and talented squad of players, that is the main ambition for Mr Moyes at present.

A lot of people on here need to realise there is not a long queue to buy this club. In fact, I have not seen any evidence of any genuine offer.

Brian Waring
11   Posted 12/11/2010 at 10:00:08

Report abuse

Ernie, how is it the new "You sound like a Kopite"?

Nearly everyone who defends BK always rolls out the 'True blue' shite.
John Keating
12   Posted 12/11/2010 at 10:04:01

Report abuse

David, I have to agree with Brian (no 6). In any trial, there is a defence case and up to now I have yet to see anyone put forward any sort of arguement to any of Colin's points.

Many people disagreed with his article ? and they have every right to ? but just to disagree isn't enough. If they disagree, they should put forward an alternative view to each of Colin's points and leave it open for general discussion.

Your article is an overview but in no way any sort of case for the defence.

Marc Williams
13   Posted 12/11/2010 at 09:33:25

Report abuse

David Wilson ? If I were Kenwright & you were my 'Brief', I'd be looking to change legal council ASAP.

You've not answered directly ANY of the accusations. I appreciate it's difficult as most are established facts but if you must defend him then at least have a go. All you seem to be doing is pleading mitigating circustances.

What exactly are you saying: YES... He is boastful & prone to fantasy (I'd ask for a phychiatric report!) but at his core he's a good lad who's been led astray by those naughty Spur's fans with money & that Worldly wise Leahey?

Also, just out of interest, David... Is Everton Football Club for sale? And if so, for how much?

I'd go back & watch a few more episodes of 'Rumpole of the Bailey' before you try this again.

All you've managed to do is write SOFT PORN FOR DODDY ( 4# )

Oh... oh. .. oh... ARGHH!

Gavin Ramejkis
14   Posted 12/11/2010 at 10:07:31

Report abuse

Michael, it isn't Ancelloti that Wilkins worked for ? he worked "with" him; his employers were Chelsea Football Club and they have the final say, similarly for the players at a club.

Kenwright has continued to employ the likes of Carter on the board, a man of many past mistakes but allowed back, why?

Doddy, you really have to be joking with the "Not Proven" line as the hearings in DK were just as astonished at the blushing and awkward truths concerning the board and the shenanigans of Tesco and KMBC's involvement: if it looks like shit, smells like shit then there's a good chance it is shit.

David, as Christine has pointed out, it does read more like a defence case for mitigation but can't detract from BK's continuing failure as the head of Everton to form a short or long-term strategy to increase either revenue or image ? the latter more confusing with his stock-in-trade of a glorified ticket tout.
Colin Potter
15   Posted 12/11/2010 at 10:19:13

Report abuse

David, a well put togerther load of crap, with the usual simperers hanging on to every word.

Doddy must be breathing very heavy.

John Keating
16   Posted 12/11/2010 at 10:10:15

Report abuse

Sorry Ernie, it was David himself who raised Colin's article and the "case for the defence". Possibly by not mentioning Colin's article and using an alternative heading, he may not have reopened the heated debate we previously had.

I don't think Colin's original article tried to portray BK as the sole reason for Everton's present situation. I think he was putting the situation since BK's tenure and if he was the right person to take us onwards. Of course that leads to the way he has handled various issues since beginning his Chairmanship.

These issues are very much out in the open and should be openly discussed.

David Thomas
17   Posted 12/11/2010 at 10:19:57

Report abuse

"Also just out of interest, David... Is Everton Football Club for sale? And if so, for how much?"

I think you're asking the wrong person, Marc.

We have been told on this site that the club is in fact not for sale, and because of this the blame lies solely at Bill Kenwright's feet. At the same time, we have also been told that the owners want £250 million for the club and the blame for this lies solely at Bill Kenwright's feet.

The truth is nobody knows.
David S Shaw
18   Posted 12/11/2010 at 10:43:55

Report abuse

More of an article that shares the blame around rather than one that supports Kenwright.

The bit I'm glad you mentioned is the original Park End build This was a huge mistake by not building it further back and to a larger scale. Absolutely huge mistake.
Brian Waring
19   Posted 12/11/2010 at 10:55:34

Report abuse

David (#17) ? Didn't BK come out and say the club has always been for sale? And then we find out during the Kirkby debacle that the board would not be looking to sell?

So, if they were never looking to sell, why was BK telling us the club has always been for sale?

Maybe it's because he's such a cutey, lovey dovey, and he forgot. Or maybe he's just full of.......????
Dick Fearon
20   Posted 12/11/2010 at 09:20:31

Report abuse

I am as much in the dark as ever. David did not provide what is required to make a case for the defence just as Colin to my mind did not make a case for the prosecution.

What David did do that Colin did not, was provide factual evidence of Lord Granchester's rebuttal of Gregg's claims. To an entrenpreneur who made his money in the market place the release of Granchester's statement was a powerful and direct blow at Gregg's credibility. That Gregg did not either publicly or in a court of law take action to clear his name only confirms that Granchester's version was the truth.

Too much of this debate is based on third or fourth party evidence and I am still waiting for actual eye-witness accounts of who said what and where. So far the only kind of factual evidence is Granchester's statement.
Such is the vast number of accusations made against Kenwright there must be hundreds of eye witnesses. Who are they and why have they not come forward?

This matter has bubbled away for far too long and its time to put it to bed. If the anti Bill people would come up with just one of eye witness, it would go a long way toward resolving the debate. Until or unless that happens I will continuel treading water.

David Thomas
21   Posted 12/11/2010 at 11:27:19

Report abuse

Brian,

Your guess is as good as mine. That's the point ? none of us have any idea.

Bill Kenwright said the club is for sale. The Kirby enquiry said the club was not for sale. Posters on this site who claim to have inside knowledge say the club is for sale for £250 million.

Nobody knows.
Steve Pugh
22   Posted 12/11/2010 at 11:15:06

Report abuse

I don't think it is a question of whether Kenwright is blameless, clearly he is not. But Colin's claim that there are only two candidates for blame regarding Everton's dire position today is quite simply ridiculous, and that is what David is saying.

For one, the rest of the board are to blame, especially the major shareholders who actually control the club. Have any of you considered how you would react as chairman if the people who really owned the club told you that, if you didn't support the Kirkby move, then they would call in all of the monies owed to them, thus bankrupting not only you but your beloved club as well? I don't know whether that did happen, but can anyone provide evidence to say that it did not. I would also like to raise the possibility that the "silent" partners where behind the sale of Rooney and possibly forced Kenwright to sell at a price that he was not happy with.

Kings Dock: only the people involved really know what happened with the money, but Kenwright made the mistake of leading the fans on, which is wrong.

As for the finances, Colin complains that Liverpool over the summer spent over £20 million on players despite being in financial meltdown; yes, Colin, they increased their debts in the knowledge that the FA, Sky and RBS would do everything in their power to make sure that the club wouldn't go under. Which they did by forcing Gillette and Hicks to sell the club by putting their own man in charge. Would Everton have got the same sort of support? Or would we have gone into administration, had the points deduction and followed Portsmouth into the Championship?

So.. Kenwright blameless? ? No. Kenwright wholly to blame? ? Definitely not. Moyes to blame ? get real. Without Moyes we could have been relegated by now.
Gavin Ramejkis
23   Posted 12/11/2010 at 12:07:48

Report abuse

Steve, sorry to sound pedantic but as the Chairman BK is wholly to blame for KD and DK; like similar lies and fuck-ups on his clock, the buck stops at him.

As far as relegation goes, it's down to DM and his strategy, players and there being at least three teams in the league shittier than us, which has happened once on DM's clock.

David Thomas
24   Posted 12/11/2010 at 12:15:28

Report abuse

Gavin,

I presume you mean that once on DM's clock there was only 3 teams shittier than us ie 2003-2004? In every year of David Moyes's time, there have been at least 3 teams shittier than us.
Steve Pugh
25   Posted 12/11/2010 at 12:19:24

Report abuse

So Gavin, as far as you are concerned, only the chairman is to blame; so if he goes, will all of the problems go? Sorry but that isn't pedantic ? it's naive. This attitude that the chairman has to take the blame is outdated and simplistic. The people with the power have to take the blame, and Kenwright does not have the power. Yes, he is to blame for his part in the KD and DK, but you need to root out the other culprits if Everton FC is ever to compete at the top again.

As for Moyes, I don't get your argument, I don't think Moyes is to blame for the dire state of the club; in fact I believe he has brought more stability on the pitch than any of us could have hoped for when he took over. Whether he can take us further is open to debate, but to say that he has contributed to the downfall of Everton FC is pure stupidity.
Stephen Kenny
26   Posted 12/11/2010 at 12:31:46

Report abuse

There's an excellent reason why nobody has put forward a case for the defence of Wlliam Kenwright? Feel free to have a guess what it is?
Andy Codling
27   Posted 12/11/2010 at 12:26:54

Report abuse

I'm bored with these questions...
David Price
28   Posted 12/11/2010 at 12:40:02

Report abuse

I don't think he's defending BK, he's more like the judge summing up. As a club, whoever's directly at fault, we have fucked up over Kings Dock; before that, we have fucked up over changes to the ground after the Hillsborough report. Two major business decisions that have cost us in moving forward.

The person in charge at the time is guilty of letting the club down. Doesn't feel like not proven to me.

Desperation led us to Kirkby, we'll never know what damage was done by not getting a new stadium, BK at fault? For me, "not proven".

As for the on field pitch standards, every time I leave the Main Stand and see Mike Walker's picture as a part of Everton's history on the new decor outside, I'm relived we have had Moyes for 8½ years ? without him, we'd have been at risk for relegation, in my opinion. No doubt with stints from Curbishley, Roy Keane and Avram Grant bringing us down. (Objection your honour, the witness is surmising).

Anyhow Dave, are you good with speeding offences?

Dave Lynch
29   Posted 12/11/2010 at 13:12:29

Report abuse

The fact that the club has not progressed is down to the board. BK is the head of that board so he is the guilty party IMO.

When I say progression, I mean with regards to marketing the club, lack of investment and poor PR. We are stagnant and will continue to stagnate as long as this sham of a board run the club.

Chris Leyland
30   Posted 12/11/2010 at 13:29:39

Report abuse

Michael - why don't you save everyone the bother of posting and once a month just put an article titled "Kenwright Good or Bad?"

That way the so-called "apologists" can say good and the "fantasists" can say bad.

We get no further on in knowing anything with the assumptions "facts" etc people role out when these debates are held. So why bother?
David Thomas
31   Posted 12/11/2010 at 13:59:22

Report abuse

Chris,

Exactly right, would be easier all round. There must have been hundreds of aticles on this matter and we are no further to knowing the truth. All we have is people from both ends of the spectrum passing of their opinions / assumptions as facts.
John Keating
32   Posted 12/11/2010 at 14:08:41

Report abuse

Chris, David ? Possibly if BK was a bit more open with the support ? or at least the shareholders ? we may not have to have these discussions.

It just seems to me that interest in other clubs appear to be announced at the time, rightly or wrongly, Hull, Blackburn, Pompey, Notts Co, RS etc etc. Our club has apparently been up for sale for 8-9 years and we hear nowt ? apart from the times BK feels under pressure.

I understand that there are many commercial implications in announcements as above but surely a little bit of info and honesty is not too much to ask for?

Michael Brien
33   Posted 12/11/2010 at 14:25:08

Report abuse

Gavin ? Wilkins was an employee of Chelsea Football Club, just as Terry, Lampard, Drogba and Co are employees of Chelsea and not Ancelloti. However one would expect that in playing matters e.g. the signing of players and the choice of staff such as Assistant Manager, the Manager would have some say and indeed any such decisions would be taken in consultation with him.

The point I was making, was that it is tempting to think that the grass is always greener on the other side ? the other side being the so called mega rich clubs. However, it is not always the case ? some of the "owners" like Ambramovich appear to want to get involved in making decisions regarding the running of the team. Not usually a good thing. As far as I know, Kenwright ? whatever his faults ? seems to have let the Manager have full autonomy regarding the running of the team.
John Daley
34   Posted 12/11/2010 at 14:25:26

Report abuse

"To be labelled a 24/7 offender when he has kept the Club in a sustainable state for so long is way over the top. Long may he reign!"

Fuck me. It's like being trapped on the Planet of the Apes and trying to explain to gobby gorillas in green jump suits that, although they may be able to ride horses and talk shit in some warped, bastardised alternate reality, BACK IN THE REAL WORLD, man rules and monkeys are merely mute motherfuckers who spend all day scratching their arses and snapping windscreen wipers off cars in safari parks.
Nelaj Behajiha
35   Posted 12/11/2010 at 14:35:41

Report abuse

I'm sorry but it seems to me like there is no truth from either side few people can check to see if it's true. The posts about the board are my least favourite articles on ToffeeWeb.
Steve Pugh
36   Posted 12/11/2010 at 14:50:53

Report abuse

John, who's to say that you don't live in the bastardised alternate reality and they live in the REAL WORLD?
Jay Harris
37   Posted 12/11/2010 at 14:32:10

Report abuse

Dave there are 3 aspects of Kenwright that are indisputible:

1. He is a proven liar.

- "the check will be in the bank in the morning" (Fortress Sports Fund)

- "The money is ringfenced" (Kings Dock) ? it never was and he kept this lie up for 2 years.

- "It will be an effectively free stadium with world class transport and Tesco will be providing £50 million towards it" (Destination Kirkby) ? all 3 points were BLATANT lies.

- "The club is for sale" vs "None of the directors are prepared to sell any of their shares" (DK submission.)

Too many other instances to list so the prosecution rests its case on this charge.

2. His fiscal management is dire.

He inherited a £5 million overdraft with money still to come in from player sales. Reports have our current debt anywhere from £60 to £80 million having sold Netherton training ground, Rooney and mortgaged GP and future season ticket sales.Too many other things to list so again the prosection rests its case.

3. His contempt for any question of his authority.

Gagging the small shareholders by removing the AGM which had been in place for years.

"I am not answering that question I am bored with that question."

If you are a glass half-full fan, you could say we have been consistent under David Moyes but don't forget that the disasters under Walter and the near relegation were under Kenwright not PJ.

I will never forget his "I speak to Walter everyday line".

David Thomas
38   Posted 12/11/2010 at 15:11:17

Report abuse

John,

Maybe the people who have taken over or had shown interest in Hull, Blackburn, Pompey, Notts Co, RS have contacted everton and the board have refused to enter into negotiations with these people. Thank Fuck if they have.

However that is only a guess by myself because like everyone else, I don't know the real truth.
David Thomas
39   Posted 12/11/2010 at 15:18:12

Report abuse

Jay,

- "The club is for sale" vs "None of the directors are prepared to sell any of their shares" (DK submission.)"

The club is for sale. You confirmed this when you told us that you had heard from the horses mouth that the club was for sale and the owners wanted between £180 - £250million.

David O'Keefe
40   Posted 12/11/2010 at 15:30:16

Report abuse

David Thomas: At those prices the club is not for sale. If he wanted to sell he would sell at a market value, not an inflated value.

The board will only get that value with a new stadium, be it in Liverpool or outside the city. They are currently hanging on for another attempt at this, their third... and it's embarrassing, shameful and harmful to the club's best interests.

The club is for sale on terms that will not facilitate a sale. That is Jay's point.
John Daley
41   Posted 12/11/2010 at 15:13:03

Report abuse

Steve,

Strictly speaking, those simian shithouses were survivors of some future apocalyptic disaster caused by mankind meddling with forces they couldn't hope to master. Bit like Kenwright trying to run a football club.

Ext: Charlton Heston on his hands & knees crawls towards a crumbling Dixie Dean statue and a bit of Lower Bullens half-buried under radioactive rubble...

"You blew it up. DAMN YOU, BILL! DAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!!".

I have been up way too long today.
Tony McNulty
42   Posted 12/11/2010 at 16:26:24

Report abuse

Does anyone know what would happen were Bill suddenly to join the celestial choir? What happens to his shares? Who would be Chairman?

If the ownership structure is a bit of a mess now, with all these alleged figures in the background, what on earth would happen if the main man joined that Great Boys' Pen in the sky?

He's definitely playing the send half now, and there are neither substitutes nor extra time in this game.

David O'Keefe
43   Posted 12/11/2010 at 16:48:27

Report abuse

Tony, the man probably has the holy grail in his possession, so it's a moot point.

Sad to think that Kenwright's death is the only way out of this malaise. Even I don't want him to die, just sell up.
Michael Kenrick
44   Posted 12/11/2010 at 15:51:30

Report abuse

Sorry, but I can't agree with Chris (#30) or Dave (#31). While there is interest in the running of the club amongst Evertonians who read and post on this website, we will continue to have threads on topics like these.

Yes, it can be difficult to understand some of the contrary information out there, but the record presented by Colin was pretty clear-cut, yet folks like Dick Fearon are going to persistently ignore eye-witness evidence and other equally solid information Colin provided in his follow-up response.

I think it would be helpful to go back to the original query, which was from someone who asked what Kenwright had done as Chairman that caused some fans to dislike him (I'm prarphraising). Colin provided a sadly impressive list... yet a number of people (including Dave Wilson) denigrated his efforts, without actually refuting anything of substance.

For me, the irony of this response from Dave Wilson is that he was going to (in his own words) "drive a coach and horses" through the lies and misstatements Colin had made... That he has clearly failed to do.

Broadening the discussion beyond Kenwright's failings does nothing to refute the specific issues that Jay Harris (#37) rightly highlights. A generous disposition may encourage you to find excuses or cite mitigating circumstances, but the basic facts of these shameful episodes are hard for some of us to ignore.

Michael Brien
45   Posted 12/11/2010 at 17:15:37

Report abuse

Jay - the near relegation in 1998 was when Johnson was the chairman - get your facts right please.
Eric Myles
46   Posted 12/11/2010 at 17:05:38

Report abuse

"Too much of this debate is based on third or fourth party evidence and I am still waiting for actual eye-witness accounts of who said what and where. So far the only kind of factual evidence is Granchester's statement. Such is the vast number of accusations made against Kenwright there must be hundreds of eye witnesses. Who are they and why have they not come forward?"

Dick #20, you could just as easily ask where are the hundreds of eye witnesses to come forward and say the accusations are not true.

Eric Myles
47   Posted 12/11/2010 at 17:20:05

Report abuse

Ged (#3) for proof of "His contempt for fans and their concerns, however, is well documented" ? read Jay (#37), point 3.

Denis Richardson
48   Posted 12/11/2010 at 17:26:12

Report abuse

Why don't people just phone the corporate secretary at the club and pretend to be an interested buyer and see what they say? May not be conclusive but at least people could say the club actually told me XYZ rather than it is assumed, my cousin's brother's uncle's nephew's dog said it was so.

Personally, I am not a BK fan and would like to see change. Main gripe is the lack of info that comes from the club meaning no-one has a clue what is going on...
David O'Keefe
49   Posted 12/11/2010 at 17:23:51

Report abuse

Exactly Eric: Where are these hundreds of eye witnesses to refute Colins claims? They exist, they have their own opinions, but they believe themselves to be entitled to their own facts.

I have to confess that Dave Wilson's defence is worse than Colin's prosecution. If I was Bill and this was a trial, I would change my plea to guilty and throw myself at the mercy of the court. Pity he's been doing that for many years by demanding a sympathetic ear by crying poverty, all the while seeking to make a massive profit at the club's expense.

I have had enough of the special pleading and denial from Bill's apologists/deniers and David Wilson, despite his mealy mouth claims to the contrary, is an apologist. Here is an idea for you:? hold him to the same standard as Peter Johnson and Paul Gregg, Terry Leahy, David and your argument falls apart.
Marc Williams
50   Posted 12/11/2010 at 17:49:57

Report abuse

John Daley - Love the POTA references.
Charles King
51   Posted 12/11/2010 at 17:44:42

Report abuse

One of the problems with the club is ongoing decline, it has been manifest since the early seventies. Honourably, Howard Kendall's team bucked the trend... then evaporated as quickly as it came.

The aim to restore the club, replicate its historic feats and lay foundations to prosper on and off the pitch have failed.

I'm afraid that's the top and bottom of it for Bill and his buddies.

It is almost incidental that his management style looks deceitful and error prone, in fact, looking around the known footballing boardrooms it seems a pre-requisite.

As Abramovich and the Glazers have shown, you can be as underhand as you want as long as the team wins.

Time for someone else to have a go, Bill.
Gavin Ramejkis
52   Posted 12/11/2010 at 18:29:48

Report abuse

Steve, not sure where you work but ask if there are any jobs going as the Chariman and sit back and repeatedly fuck up and see how long you last. Naive to think the "True Blue, just a fan" bullshit gives you an excuse to hold the position of chairman in name only.

I've little doubt that Green has significant string-pulling abilities but, as the named man at the top of the pile, then BK DOES need to carry the can.
John McLoughlin
53   Posted 12/11/2010 at 20:07:19

Report abuse

If Bill really does want to sell the club, why doesnt he step aside as chairman. Funny how, within 6 months of Liverpool's owners stepping aside, they were sold.

I do not believe BK wants to sell the club; he wants a rich man to finance his plaything and nobody would be crazy enough to do that. BK may be a Blue but he's not a suitable chairman.

Michael Brien
54   Posted 12/11/2010 at 20:09:33

Report abuse

Jay ? just to set the record straight:

1) Our near relegaton ? remember the last day of the season nail biter v Coventry? Well, a certain Peter Johnson was the Chairman.

2) As to the near disasters you refer to under Walter Smith, a rather unfair assessment of Walter Smith. Why? Well, when he first joined as manager, he made several signings e.g. Materazzi, Dacourt and Bakayoko. The latter was signed I believe to play alongside Duncan Ferguson. However, before that could happen, Ferguson was sold ? WITHOUT Smith's knowledge or approval.

From that point on, Johnson "pulled the plug" on any future major spending. So any plans for bringing in any other new players had to be radically rethought by Smith. All things considered being reduced to "bargain" signings (this was in the days of the old March transfer deadline.) Smith didn't do too badly bringing in Scot Gemmil & David Weir for about £250,000 each and a certain Kevin Campbell on loan. I think most Evertonians would agree that David Weir was the bargain signing of that or any other season.

3) I also remember the rather distasteful remarks of a certain Peter Johnson towards Howard Kendall. During the close season, shortly after the arrival of the likes of Materazzi, Collins and Dacourt, Peter Johnson said that the calibre of players signed by Walter Smith were superior to the "journeyman" type of players Howard Kendall had brought in. A certain degree of hypocrisy there I feel ? well, more than a certain degree a whole load of hypocrisy as, within a matter of a few weeks, Peter Johnson was to show his true colours with the sale of Duncan Ferguson and the sudden lack of transfer funds.

In case you think this is a defence of BK, I prefer to think of it as a putting the record straight as regards Peter Johnson. It annoys me that BK takes all the flack for ALL that's gone wrong and Johnson gets off scot-free. Try looking at the big picture, Jay, as well as getting your facts right as to our relegation near-misses.

Just in case you want to commit them to memory: 1993-94 v Wimbledon, a 3-2 win and 1997-98 v Coventry a 1-1 draw ? that's prior to Kenwright becoming "owner".

We seem to have forgotten just how much damage Peter Johnson did to Everton. And how disgracefully he treated two fine Everton managers in Joe Royle and Howard Kendall. I remember we were without a manager for about 2 months and all the time Johnson kept making promises of an imminent arrival. If you want to have a go at anyone, try Peter Johnson for a change Jay ? unless that is you are Peter Johnson???

Ste Traverse
55   Posted 12/11/2010 at 20:36:02

Report abuse

I can't believe BK's supporters still trot out the "he's a true blue" line. Is that really all the credentials you need to run this club??

And as for using the Peter Johnson years as another lame defence of Kenwright, Bill was part of his board! (and was part of the previous one under the hapless Dr David Marsh).

Kenwright is way way out of his depth in today's Premier League, but he believes there is someone out there that will invest mega bucks into the club and let him still call the shots; this just isn't going to happen.

The man's ego and determination to hang on at all costs is what's holding this club back.
Jay Harris
56   Posted 12/11/2010 at 20:53:28

Report abuse

Michael (#54) ? just to set the record straight:

The last near relegation was in 2001 season, just before Moyes took over, when we looked certs for the drop and Kenwright had been in charge for 2 years.

In fact, most supporters credit Moyes with saving us from relegation that season.

"...unless that is you are Peter Johnson???"

Are you on drugs man? What a stupid statement.

And by the way, Peter Johnson is not on trial here ? Kenwright is.

Dick Fearon
57   Posted 12/11/2010 at 20:40:37

Report abuse

Eric Myles # 46. Quote: "Dick, you could just as easily ask where are the hundreds of eyewitnesses to come forward and say the accusations are not true."

As an interested yet rapidly becoming bored onlooker, that is precisely the point I tried to make.
In any trial under English law, the onus is on the prosecution to provide credible evidence proving the accused is guilty as charged. The defence needs only to answer and rebut such prosecution claims. Where those claims are not supported by factual evidence and / or eyewitness accounts, it is within its rights not to submit evidence even if such evidence would definitely prove its side of the matter.

Jay Harris
58   Posted 12/11/2010 at 21:12:51

Report abuse

David Thomas I have never mentioned a figure of £180-250 million.

My only post on the subject of how much the club was for sale for was to reaffirm that Michael was in the ballpark with figures he had had confirmed to him by others.

If anyone wants to know the terms of the sale just get some credibility and phone Keith Harris and discuss it with him instead of speculating on here.

Then you'll get a better idea of who is conducting the sale and why the club is STILL for sale.
Steve Pugh
59   Posted 12/11/2010 at 22:57:48

Report abuse

Gavin, you are missing my point. I am not saying that BK isn't to blame (thought you would have got that from the first line of post 22). I am saying that he is not the only one to blame, which was Colin's statement, and that a witchhunt against him as an individual will not solve our problems. We need to get rid of them all.

As for your comment regarding chairmen fucking up and keeping their jobs, I point you towards major banks, NHS trusts, Rail Companies and many more.
Christine Foster
60   Posted 12/11/2010 at 23:26:36

Report abuse

Dick Fearon, perhaps if you took the time to review the eyewitness statements in the inquiry over Kirkby regarding the sale of shares, or the removal of AGMs to prevent unneccessary discussion, or responses to fans with legitimate questions, or the watch this space, money in bank, ..

They are all comments and actions made by the man himself. No scuttlebutt, no made up crap. Fact.

But what is on trial is not JUST the facts, which alone are pretty damming, but also the chairman's credibility to be anything other than a fan, his commercial ablity and credibility to run this club.

As I said in my initial response to David's post, there are others to blame as well as Kenwright, there are other players with vested interests, and we will never know the facts of conversations regarding Paul Gregg and KD. All we do know is that we have had two major bids for stadiums under BK reign; both have ended in costly failure financially and in our reputation. No-one has accepted responsibility. No-one got sacked.

The fact that DK was a sham / con based on nothing more than fictitious funding underlines how poor commercially we are.
These are facts, Dick ? dress them up however you like but that's what they are. The bleating hoard of those who moan that BK is doing his best and we should continue to trust run risk of following this Pied Piper to the Mersey and oblivion.

Robert Daniels
61   Posted 13/11/2010 at 00:03:27

Report abuse

Well said, Christine. Well said.
David Thomas
62   Posted 12/11/2010 at 23:34:08

Report abuse

Jay,

Michael has said "The asking price is apparently somewhere between £180M and £250M ? which is simply astounding."

You have said the following comments "to have EFC's best interests at heart while looking for £180 million for a club that is in a much worse financial state now just about sums the man up for me."

"As somebody who has spoken to Keith Harris about the sale of the club, I can say the figures being bandied about and the suggestion as to who is controlling the "sale" are not wide of the mark."

"For those of you questioning Michael, I can confirm that he is right in the ballpark and that Earl and Green are handling the sale and it is very complicated (from the horse's mouth)."

"David (Doubting) Thomas, what I stated was not a tease it is fact and you are the only person to question it".

You have therefore mentioned the figure of £180 million and you have also confirmed that after your discussions with Keith Harris these values are correct and that is a fact as you have heard it from the horse's mouth.

Your last post was great "If anyone wants to know the terms of the sale just get some credibility and phone Keith Harris and discuss it with him instead of speculating on here". I presume you have phoned him? Can you give us his number so I can ring him and see if he gives me as much information as he has given you? Or are you simply speculating like everyone else on this site?

Eric Myles
63   Posted 13/11/2010 at 00:31:29

Report abuse

Dick, there is plenty of documented evidence of BK's crimes, just read Jay's (#37) post again and Christines (#60).

Or do you believe that the cheque DID arrive in the bank? And the KD money WAS available. In which cases, where did it all go?

And you really STILL believe the free world class stadium and transport links BS????

Gavin Ramejkis
64   Posted 13/11/2010 at 00:59:30

Report abuse

Steve, I've over 6 years experience in banking and am back consulting at another state-owned one again now; dont let the newspaper stories of poor bankers and incompetent chairmen get in the way of the fact they are all thriving and the chairmen move on with healthy pensions and new deals to take over. The government protect the banks as they need them to retain trading capabilities and, no matter what party gets into power, they will all toe the line.

The sham which is the ruling of not being able to imprison the head of a rail company for rail tragedies or similarly NHS trust problems which are rolled downwards to the consultants and doctors and nurses involved will always provide those in power with protection.

BK's chairmanship is a whole different story, he has neither legislation nor political power saving his bacon.
James Flynn
65   Posted 13/11/2010 at 02:14:34

Report abuse

Dave Wilson:

1. Good post

2. Good to see you back in here and with something substantial.

Let me ask, who owns the majority shares in the Club? They call the shots. Not Kenwright. He's just the front man who says what he's told to say.
Eugene Ruane
66   Posted 13/11/2010 at 02:56:44

Report abuse

[Sticks black silk hanky on head.]

"William Luvington Hickson Boyspen Kenwright, you have been found..."
Derek Thomas
67   Posted 13/11/2010 at 03:38:38

Report abuse

Eugene, overdub your intro onto the Porridge opening... finishing with the CLANG!

Point is our problem is that BK is no Fletcher ( Harry Redknapp is in line for that part in more ways than one if they ever catch up with him) ? more like the Ken Joneses 'Orrible Ives character.

Btw, talking of overdubs, someone years ago swapped over pictures and music between the climax (cold shower for you Doddy) of Star Wars and 633 Squadron... seamless, works a treat.

Right, back to topic... Oi! you! Doddy, back on your meds that man.

Dick, Treading water?? you're not waving, you're DROWNING. You'd be out of your depth on a mildly moist pavement. You there, that man, another cold shower for you Doddy, jeez you can't even mention moist now without some people coming over all BK-tastic. Doh, I said coming and BK, back in the shower Doddy and take your mate Dick with you, Doh I'll just stop digging and get me coat.
Thomas Williams
68   Posted 13/11/2010 at 04:39:59

Report abuse

Peter Johnson was forced into selling Duncan on the Monday night as Everton owed the taxman £7M and was going to be put into recievership the following Thursday, we were in dire straits, as the debts, from what I gather were masked from Johnson when he took over.

Regarding Stanley Park, Johnson went ballistic over that stand and nearly pulled out of taking us over because we built only one tier instead of two. The club were lying through their teeth as to the situation, when he took over, hundreds of thousands of pounds were being robbed by the staff in the 300/500 clubs and the club did nothing. He wanted all the staff fired and the board refused!!

Everton's full demise started on 1 December 1993 when, only 3 pts behind a European place, the team playing well but needed a goalscorer (sound familar?), Kendall wanted Dion Dublin for £1M and the board (of which Kenwright was a member) refused. Kendall left the following week; 6 months later came the infamous Wimbledon game.

True Blue Bill my arse... read Alan Ball's thoughts on that in his book.

Dick Fearon
69   Posted 13/11/2010 at 10:23:38

Report abuse

Christine, Eric and possibly others that responded to my request for proof, thank you for taking the time. I shall when time allows study your evidence with an open mind.
Meanwhile can anyone enlighten me as to where Colin and David's charge and counter charge has advanced in one iota the clubs current situation?

The words deck chairs and Titanic come to mind.

Colin Fitzpatrick
70   Posted 13/11/2010 at 10:48:13

Report abuse

David Wilson,

Interesting post, despite the faux flattery (blockbuster, it had the lot etc) I think you see it as a genuine attempt to offer a balanced view and appeal to what you see as the thinking Evertonian ? or, as I see them, people with arses like hot-cross buns due to sitting on the fence wanting to appear "reasonable". Your lengthy work was, in my opinion, nailed by the first respondent, Christine, in the third paragraph of her post.

For me you fell at the first hurdle because you?ve misinterpreted the pieces you?re attempting to comment on. Bill Kenwright wasn?t on trial, I wasn?t making a case for the prosecution, the title of your piece should have read ?Trail? instead of ?Trial?.

As Christine states, my piece was a list of disasters ? Kings Dock, NTL, Kirkby, the gagging of shareholders, the abolition of AGMs ? to name but a few; a veritable debris field stretching out behind our chairman. The reason you?ve failed to address every single one of those debacles is the same reason you won?t find an article on here claiming we?re not in twelfth place or we didn?t draw at Blackpool or against Bolton; it?s because they?re facts, indisputable facts.

The original article was a response to somebody wanting to know what Bill Kenwright had done to deserve so much animosity from fans on TW; attempting to widen the scope of this to include others such as Johnson, Gregg, Marsh et al is, again in my opinion, nothing more than an attempt to deflect the blame, the responsibility if you like, for some of the most truly appalling episodes and without doubt the darkest in our long history. For me, Kirkby was an act of Evertonian treason of Judas Iscariot proportions. In my opinion, Bill Kenwright, as chairman, sat back and misled the shareholders and the fans whilst the club was about to be sold down the river.

I?ll make it easy for all the ?Bill isn?t all bad brigade? ? explain why he should still hold the office of chairman and director after Kirkby, nothing else, just Kirkby. My own view is that he should be removed along with Robert Earl to prevent the influence of Philip Green being exerted on Everton Football Club; you think they can?t... think again!

I keep seeing certain posters mentioning that the financial performance of the club under Bill Kenwright isn?t too bad, is better than before, how he?s steadied the ship, how, according to one poster on another thread, "Kenwright has delivered investment, what we can judge Kenwright on is our commercial performance, it's tough to get to the facts but I do see some progress." Great, financial performance is an exact science, it?s measurable against known ratios and recorded annually; so let's see it, show me how much better we are ? not some journalist regurgitating the club spin that we?re a well run club, let?s see the indisputable evidence....

Oh, and Dick (69), some people on here have attempted to make a difference whilst others sit on their arse, spout shite and can?t see what is put in front of them. You may feel that?s harsh but the fuckwits are lost causes in my opinion.

So, this ship that?s been steadied...

Bill Slater
71   Posted 13/11/2010 at 11:06:41

Report abuse

Christine (#60). Link to BlueKipper interview with Paul Gregg in 2005 if you want to see some facts.

http://www.vintagebluekipper.com/club/0405/club3_gregg.htm
Bill Slater
72   Posted 13/11/2010 at 11:11:51

Report abuse


Dick (69) - Is it not a case of Toffeeweb articles being a modern form of investigative journalism to get to the bottom of historical facts? The point of this is so that we can possibly learn from the past and look for a way forward. Modern day football debates amongst an enlightened fan base has well and truely moved on from discussing the talents of the on-field playing staff. Whoever thought that understanding how businesses are run could be so enthrawling?
Gavin Ramejkis
73   Posted 13/11/2010 at 10:54:03

Report abuse

Dick, its neither Colin or David's job to move the club anywhere as they aren't the owners or major shareholders. Colin, as a concerned shareholder has expressed these in an open forum for people like you and I who aren't privvy to what happens behind closed doors.
David Thomas
74   Posted 13/11/2010 at 11:34:49

Report abuse

"some people on here have attempted to make a difference"

Colin, which people on here specifically have tried to make a difference and what exactly have they done to try and make this difference?
John Keating
75   Posted 13/11/2010 at 11:31:54

Report abuse

I know its repetitive, guys, but Colins initial article ? a long time ago now ? threw up various points, and up to this point in time I have yet to read one contributor who has either put an alternative "defence" for BK and his cohorts or shoot any of the points down in flames.

I repeat that it's quite easy to say it's all hogwash ? prove your points!!

Christine Foster
76   Posted 13/11/2010 at 11:29:40

Report abuse

Thank you, Bill, for the link. I had previously read it a while back; however, it was the reasoning as to what happened with BK and Paul Gregg regarding the Kings Dock fiasco and the slpitting of ways. To hear from Gregg as to what was said and done would be interesting to say the least.

However, today we are where we are. Going forward, we need a strategy, a plan, a leader with credibility and funding. That will not come from an investor but a purchaser.

What's likely to stop the sale of the club? Simple really ? the money and the terms of sale attached to it.

Included in the terms of sale, I would imagine the protection of the current board, non-dilution of shares, and a role of significance for Bill. Irrespective of any value estimated, if the terms aren't satisfied there won't be a deal.

Lastly, this talk of investment... for what? What have we to interest an investor if no-one will sell shares or agree to a dilution? This, in a nutshell is why Everton FC are in dire need of a different solution than the above.

I am intensly jealous of the RS being able to bring in the experience of a sporting organisation that is both professional, ruthless and determined to win. Like it or not, this is likely to be the shape of successful clubs in the future. Not BK, and not a kind investor...
David O'Keefe
77   Posted 13/11/2010 at 13:46:52

Report abuse

David Thomas: I am one of the people that tried to make a difference, as is Colin and Keioc and their supporters.
Michael Brien
78   Posted 13/11/2010 at 13:46:40

Report abuse

Jay - you are the one that's stupid - the nearest that we have come to relegation was in 1994 and 1998 - both times it went to the very last match of the season. You can't get much closer than that - if Coventry had managed another goal that would have been relegation and there was the little matter of being 0-2 down to Wimbledon in 1994. Get your facts right please.

Kenwright may be on trial but I get annoyed when people like you make little or no reference to Peter Johnson. He very nearly drove our club into near relegation and was far more economical with the truth than Kenwright.

You remind me of someone who would say, "That Russian guy Putin is a nasty piece of work ? Stalin who was he?"

David O'Keefe
79   Posted 13/11/2010 at 13:59:52

Report abuse

Michael Brien; please stop playing the "it was worse under Johnson" card, his failings don't make Bill a success.

Can you deal with the present situation please, two failed ground moves, crippling debts, an aging squad and the future under BK?

Peter Johnson left the club in 1999 and reduced the price of his stake to facilitate a sale, if only BK/Earl/Woods could do the same.

Colin Potter
80   Posted 13/11/2010 at 14:43:45

Report abuse

Michael Brien,
Did we not finish 17th in 2003-04? That was pretty close wasn't it?
David Thomas
81   Posted 13/11/2010 at 15:18:56

Report abuse

David O'Keefe,

And what difference did you Colin and KEIOC make?
David O'Keefe
82   Posted 13/11/2010 at 15:25:09

Report abuse

The difference is Mr Thomas that we tried, that is usually the first step towards making a difference. We don't make mealy mouthed excuses/apologetics for a man that holds us all in contempt. So that's your first question answered.

As for the results of our attempts, Bill Kenwright is now on the back foot permanetly, why do you think he took away the rights of the small shareholders?

I think it's important that Colin, Keioc and many others keep trying to make a difference as Bill Kenwright and Company are not acting in the club's best interests, and more importantly are not going to go unless they're under a great deal of pressure.

The trouble with the supporters is that they don't know that they can make a difference.
David Thomas
83   Posted 13/11/2010 at 16:00:01

Report abuse

David,

Talk about self praise. You have made no difference at all and dont kid yourselves that you have. Just like the Spirit of Shankly group made no difference at Liverpool, it was the banks demanding their money back that brought about the downfall of Hicks and Gillet, and just like the fans in Old Trafford waving yellow and green scarves in the air have made no difference to the Glazers running United.

Furthermore, you state "As for the results of our attempts" what specifically have you all done?
Andy Crooks
84   Posted 13/11/2010 at 16:07:18

Report abuse

I find it beyond belief that there are Evertonians who think that being a fan is enough to make one a proper chairman. What else does Bill Kenwright offer? This ridiculous, untrustworthy, lying, insincerity-oozing luvvy has lived the dream on the cheap for years.
Art Jones
85   Posted 13/11/2010 at 15:51:10

Report abuse

David Wilson, does it not occur to you or bother you that Kenwright is so much on the back foot that his abolition of AGMs and EGMs have now taken away another opportunity for the concerned shareholders to express their doubts and ask pertinent questions?

David Thomas, are you aware that KEIOC and Colin told Kenwright and the board that DK would never go ahead and the reasons why it wouldn't, yet Kenwright still insisted on spending millions on "experts" who were subsequently discredited at the Public Enquiry?

Sometimes you can try your hardest but, when the people you are trying to help won't listen, there's only one person you can blame.

David O'Keefe
86   Posted 13/11/2010 at 16:09:22

Report abuse

David Thomas: We collectively held them to account. So would you claim that the pressure that Peter Johnson was put under by the supporters made no difference?

I think the Shankly group did make a difference: are Hicks and Gillet there anymore? Did their protests have an effect? Yes, they waged an effective campaign against the yanks over broken promises. More pertinently, the Green and Gold campaign has had an effect on season ticket sales at OT, the first decrease in years and empty seats at CL games.

As for Keioc, they challenged the outright lies and disinformation about Kirkby and have held the club to account re Kirkby. They have also brought to our attention the role of Sir Phillip Green at EFC.

The Shankly group, Green and Gold, and Keioc have one thing in common: they challenge those in power; you make excuses for them. I know who I prefer.

You say they didn't make a difference ? it's not always about who eventually forces the change, it's about demanding it first. The Shankly group and Green and Gold have raised awareness about their clubs' problems... why can't we Blues do the same? Pressure pays off in the end, Mr Thomas, and I don't think the Glazers will be running MUFC in the soon to be post-ferguson future. The Reds have replaced one set of yanks with another, but that Shankly group isn't going away. Pressure pays off... and BK survives because he is under no pressure at all.
Michael Brien
87   Posted 13/11/2010 at 16:15:50

Report abuse

Colin, in 1993-94 it was down to the very last match... and it was the same in 1997-98. In both cases, it was far closer than in 2001. The closest that we have have ever been to relegation since 1951 was in those two last-day-of-the-season matches. Know your history, OK.

David ?- are you an apologist for Peter Johnson or something? Oh and David, I am not saying just because it was worse under Johnson that makes Kenwright ok at all. What I am saying is that Johnson seems to have gone off the radar as far as any blame for any failings at Everton. Kenwright it seems is to blame for everything that has gone wrong. I am saying that he is not solely to blame and I never used the word success ? that was you. there are others including Peter Johnson and his crony Cliff Finch that also have things to anwer for.

To put the blame solely on Kenwright is far too simplistic. Everton's decline as a force in English football can be traced back to before Kenwright's time and in my opinion is something that is down to the failings of several people, not just one.
David O'Keefe
88   Posted 13/11/2010 at 16:52:53

Report abuse

Nice trick, Michael Brien... but he (Johnson) left the club in 1999; 11 years later and he still gets a disproportionate amount of the blame, unlike a certain director at the time (Bill Kenwright). Peter Johnson was held to account by the fans for making promises that he couldn't keep and was eventually forced out; Bill Kenwright has done the same thing ? Destination Kirkby ? and you defend him.

I only see one apologist here, and I am sick of you and many other apologists wheeling out the Johnson monster in order to deflect attention from Kenwright.

Kenwright has been on the board since 1984; he can be blamed for the club's failings, or do you trace the club's decline to the years before 1984? Tread carefully my apologist friend.
David Thomas
89   Posted 13/11/2010 at 16:48:55

Report abuse

David,

Do you think that if the bank had not demanded their money back like they did and the spirit of shankley group had protested at every game home and away for the next ten years that Hicks and Gillet would have been forced out? The answer is no. They would have stayed there.

Are the Glazers showing any sign of leaving united due to the green and gold protest? The answer is no. If that wasnt the case and the protests had put them on the back foot they would have looked at the red knights bid more closely instead of dismissing it out of hand and refusing to even speak to them.

Do you think if the secretary of state had given the approval for Kirby (Thankfully this scheme was not approved) the club would have cancelled their plans anyway due to the protests of KEIOC. The answer is no they would not have.

Do you think the secretary of state made the decision regarding kirby because of the impact KEIOC had had on the proceedings? No is the answer to that.
David O'Keefe
90   Posted 13/11/2010 at 17:05:41

Report abuse

David Thomas: You asked for a difference and you have tacitly conceded the point re: Johnson. So thank you for that concession.

To suggest that Keioc had no influence at all on the SoS is erroneous, but I'm sure Colin will return to the fray eventually and I will defer to him.

The Green and Gold campaign have had an effect, whether you will admit or not, they are hitting the Glazers where it hurts ?in the pocket, knowing that if they can't make debt repayments they have to sell.

As for the Shankly group, they played a part, but the pressure they applied was dwarfed by Benitez's failings. Rafa saw them off, and they also organised merchandise boycotts, but I can't claim that they were effective.

You asked what difference they made, I stated it; if you don't accept it, that's your prerogative. The Green and Gold and the Shankly group want greater supporter involvement in the running of their clubs; no bad thing if we look to Germany and the healthy state of the Bundesliga. They're playing a long game, but they have been successful in their own way, raising awareness, holding their clubs' hierarchies to account ? that's making a difference in my book.

Pressure makes a difference, but it takes time and I think you're speaking far too soon re the Glazers.
David O'Keefe
91   Posted 13/11/2010 at 17:19:23

Report abuse

In all this, can anyone substantiate claims made up thread that commercially and financially we're not too bad under Kenwright?

The transfer spend suggests otherwise.
Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
92   Posted 13/11/2010 at 17:56:08

Report abuse

We seem to be getting diverted from the Sins of BK to the influence of KEIOC. Perhaps that's not as unfortunate as I initially thought ? it underlines yet again the absence of any meaningful "defence" from Kenwright's apologists.

However, I do believe it is a terribly unjust re-writing of our history that Evertonians like Dave Thomas, Dick Fearon and Dave Wilson are so keen to dismiss the role that these or other fan pressure groups have.

One thing that repeats itself when it comes to fan activism for Everton is the incredible polarizations that rapidly emerge, and the speed with which these internal battles can rapidly neutralize the pressure applied. It so nearly undid the valiant efforts of KEIOC to clarify for all fans the fallacies and falsehoods that underpinned Destination Kirkby. No Evertonian should be dismissive of those incredible efforts, and for those who continue to do so, the transcripts of the Public Enqiuiry on DK should be required reading.

Back on topic, the issue is not so much that Kenwright should be held responsible for everything, going back 20+ years ? but that he should be held accountable for specific issues and events of his Chairmanship, where he has lied to or deceived fans and shareholders.

Personally, I think such acts are unconscionable, yet some Evertonians are willing to ignore, justify or excuse such indiscretions under a wealth of palliatives (True Blue... business expediency... better the devil you know... beware what you wish for, etc), while for others, the memories of Kings Dock and Destination Kirkby will not be so easily glossed over. Yes, it's ancient history now, and we should perhaps be looking forward... but to what exactly?

With the Everton Accounts for last season due to be published in the next few weeks, they should provide another opportunity for us to take a closer look at the club's commercial performance, and hopefully get a clearly picture of just how much debt had been taken on by the end of the season.
Ste Traverse
93   Posted 13/11/2010 at 18:26:13

Report abuse

Michael Brien. As you keep playing the tedious Johnson Joker card, do you not think the 11 years Kenwright has had at the helm since Johnson sold up has been ample enough time for Kenwright to sort out any problems Johnson may or may not have left behind?

Because, if he's not sorted them out by now, he never will.
James I'Anson
94   Posted 13/11/2010 at 19:29:58

Report abuse

Even politicians don't blame the previous administration after 11 years. It would be pathetic and embarrassing.
Tom Hughes
95   Posted 13/11/2010 at 20:54:17

Report abuse

Dave Wilson reveals all with his attempt to discredit KEIOC's efforts when that really isn't the issue. He should first attempt to read about the Public Inquiry, and the role KEIOC played in that whole process before he goes off half-cocked.

From a standing start, they provided the biggest body of evidence at the inquiry, and systematically exposed KD's multiple failings to the point that all involved with it were taking large backward steps by the end ? by which time no-one wanted to challenge KEIOC's stance.

At the same time, they maintained a presence on all of these websites, throughout the process, telling Evertonians the truth about what they'd been promised. That truth forced and EGM, and resulted in DK's support practically vanishing on ALL Evertonian websites.... to the point now, that the whole sorry episode is considered a sick joke by most.

This involved literally thousands of man-hours of unpaid work by these people, and was commended by all involved (including some within the club)....

Meanwhile Dave's dissection of Colin's/keioc's work has all the substance of one of my 6-year-old's story books. It seems some still haven't forgiven KEIOC for having the temerity to shatter their blue-tinted specs by telling the truth..... Disprove them if you can!

Leon Perrin
96   Posted 13/11/2010 at 21:11:41

Report abuse

I'll give Kenwright 2 outta 10 for avoiding relegation with "mid-table Moyes" but don't kid yourselves, he's looking after himself first and the club second.

Kirkby was his nice little earner, thieving get. He needs to be shipped out, pronto. We're going nowhere with him and his pal Moyes, not an idea between them, it's like Zombies r Us running Everton.
Brian Waring
97   Posted 13/11/2010 at 21:29:58

Report abuse

You're spot on there, Tom, some can't handle the fact that KEIOC were right over the Kirkby fiasco, but haven't got the balls to admit it.
Christine Foster
98   Posted 13/11/2010 at 22:15:15

Report abuse

Its sad to say that perhaps the most damaging thing that has come out of BK tenure is the fact that he has almost singlehandedly split the fan base and his actions have and do, continue to do so.

If it's a legacy he was after, he has one: the man who treated the fans with contempt. It is no surprise therefore when a section of fans return the favour.

It is no surprise too that many refuse to see what is in front of them; despite the facts, they still believe. Such blind faith is impressive and such is a fan.

But it's an easy option and it takes courage to go against the flow and say something is not right. Many on here tried to make a difference and used whatever public forum they could to do so, some approached the club with alternative solutions only to be shown the door because of the infamous Confidentiality Agreement that BK and others hid behind the skirts of.

We have a voice and just because some of us didn't blindly follow does not mean we are any less a fan of this great club. There is a bitterness in being proven wrong, not just sitting with the fans but with the board. Humble Pie and BK don't go down well. They will continue to blame, deflect and vilify those who saw things differently.
Colin Fitzpatrick
99   Posted 13/11/2010 at 22:33:30

Report abuse

I think that Theo Kelly was a right bastard, it was the beginning of the end when he got rid of Joe Mercer ;-)
Dave Wilson
100   Posted 13/11/2010 at 20:57:28

Report abuse

Colin

You`ve missed the point mate. Floyd's Trial wasn't really a trial ? no need for the jury to retire.

I only made the references to Marsh and Johnson et al because the thought that chairman after chairman had made fuck-up after fuck-up before you became interested just doesn't seem to have occurred to you. Everton's problems as far as you are concerned only started when Kenwright came along. You actually say so, but you're wrong, just as you were wrong when on more than one occasion you tried to rewrite history by implicating Kenwright in things you know perfectly well he had nothing to do with.

I`m not blind to what Kenwright's fuck ups or his porkies and my article was not a defence of his actions. It was a clear attempt to set the record straight, with facts

You want Elstone and Lord Grantchester on a board you would choose personally, yet while one was was trying to convince Evertonia that Kirkby really was the only way ? even as it unravelled ? the other has clearly demonstrated he doesn't give a flying fuck about our club. He only steps into the public domain to distance himself from any talk of investment... or show Gregg up to be a lying fucker.

The excitables might want to charge around like teenagers threatening to "Take over the school" but this is a serious grown-up issue, and the only solution is serious grown-up wedge... know anybody? Of course you dont and that my friend is the answer to your question. BK is still the chairman of our club because he`s the only wealthy man who actually wants to be.

I`m not now, nor have I ever been an apologist, nor ? perish the thought ? one of the self-proclaimed "enlightened". I belong to a group that looks at both with equal bemusement. For the sake of this debate let's call this group err... the overwhelming majority.

What do the overwhelming majority believe? Well, fuck all Kenwright says for a start. However, we know that after years of mismanagement by SEVERAL directors and indeed chairman, that Kenwright was able to take control of Everton unchallenged ? nobody else wanted to fucken know.
Therefore we don't subscribe to the bizarre notion that, after a further decade of mismanagement, our club has now become infinitely desirable to would-be investors.

To rehash a Groucho marks line, what the fuck would we want with a Chairman who was dumb enough to take us on anyway?

You are wrong Colin 4-4-2 +3-5-1 are relevant to ALL Evertonians. our only chance of salvation is on the pitch, if we don't get our hands on Champions League wedge then we should die trying.

Remove the board? Well, you kinda brushed over that one, Colin; run it by me again, how do we remove the board? As for calls for mutiny? I've seen firsthand how damaging it can be to a football club.

I`ll carry on going the match in the hope that somebody will do something with the ball that I could only dream of doing.
If thats what you call fence-sitting then that's your prerogative, but know this, I`m the one with hope here... yours seems to have disappeared with the Kings Dock dream.

Everton Football Club will not be taken over until somebody actually wants it enough to make it happen.
Dave Wilson
101   Posted 13/11/2010 at 22:57:01

Report abuse

Tom

I didn't discuss Keioc in the article; I feared Kirkby as much as anybody.
Marc Williams
102   Posted 13/11/2010 at 22:52:33

Report abuse

FFS, he's Guilty as chared or should that be Guilty in charge!

Take the accused down. Sentence is a very appropriate 24 (years) / 7 (months) in the BOYS PEN(itentiary).

You've got to feel sorry for the other inmates though, when he regales them with his Elvis's secret visit story etc ad-nauseum!
Ste Traverse
103   Posted 13/11/2010 at 22:56:51

Report abuse

What sickened me was the way some blues took a huge dislike to KEIOC from the start and believed all the clubs lies regarding DK rather than listening to what KEIOC said in that it would be thrown out. Yet when DK was dismantled at the public inquiry,shown up for the sham it was and was chucked out these same blues started turning their anger on, bizzarely, KEIOC!
David O'Keefe
104   Posted 13/11/2010 at 23:22:22

Report abuse

Ste: To admit that you're wrong takes courage and the hardcore apologists don't have this courage. I used to be a Kenwright apologist/supporter myself, but Kirkby changed that for me.
Stephen Kenny
105   Posted 13/11/2010 at 23:37:33

Report abuse

Colin,

Still waiting for the coach & horses to be driven through? BTW you seemed to know the person you were "debating" with? What's the situation? It seems like there are a few on here and elsewhere with some very strange agendas.
Dick Fearon
106   Posted 13/11/2010 at 23:43:40

Report abuse

Is this the same Keep Everton In Our City that would have accepted a stadium move to BIRKENHEAD?
David O'Keefe
107   Posted 14/11/2010 at 00:03:29

Report abuse

It was near a tunnel, Dick, but it was on the Liverpool side, soft lad.
Dean Adams
108   Posted 13/11/2010 at 22:50:53

Report abuse

James I'Anson #94

Are you joking?
Fucking Labour blamed the Tories right up to the last Election. Lies. lies and more lies. And no doubt, the coalition will do the same for the duration.

Politics is based on lies, so young man is every business that makes money. Don't be so naieve.
I don't know the truth, probably never will. But fact is, we are far better now than we were in the 90s. Maybe, just maybe, we will strike lucky, finish top four and reach the Champions League, thus gaining some extra income and pushing on. Without hope, we are nothing!!!

David O'Keefe
109   Posted 14/11/2010 at 00:07:16

Report abuse

Dean, we won a trophy in the 90s.
Dean Adams
110   Posted 14/11/2010 at 00:13:23

Report abuse

Scant solace for a fan of such a majestic club. I was one of those who cheered, even if the bar was still shaking, just like I was, but I would've then, and still woul've swapped that for the the cup final when one Irish United player, who moved to us and then got injured, scored the winner!

That would have been the catalyst that would have propelled us to the top of English football. I still hate Big Ron for that very lucky win against the favourites, and still regret that Norman Whiteside never had the chance to repay his massive debt to us!!

Micheal Lynch
111   Posted 14/11/2010 at 00:52:24

Report abuse

David O'Keeffe, comment #86 is the best here for me. There is no doubt the Spirit of Shanks group made a difference. Their protests if nothing else let the football world know that they would not accept what the yanks were doing to their club.

You talk to United fans and they agree that eventually the Green and Gold club will reap rewards there but, that said, they're still near top and their pressure is not as great, results will dictate that.

I was a proud season ticket holder from 94 to 98 and was on the pitch chanting "Johnson Out" at the end of the coventry game. I have no doubt that the protests that time had a major influence on him leaving.

I was at the Bolton game on Wednesday and spent time with a regurlar season ticket holder whom I started to probe about BK. I knew within minutes she had little of the facts and I'm sure that is the case for a lot of Evertonians who don't use this and other forums.

Keioc were brillant in what they did but where were the protests involving 1000s of blues? You can say what you want about them but would they accept the abolition of their AGM? Answer: No. Kenwright has it very comfortable in my opinion and, as Colin has proved beyond doubt, he is clearly a liar and a bullshitter. However, until more blues start to care and take action, he will continue to have his merry way.

Protests make a difference, of that their is no doubt. They bring about change and they highlight wrong-doings. They put pressure on those in charge to listen and it slowly breaks the bull-shit line. Results have a direct bearing on the matter. Liverpool were slipping; their need was more urgent. United are still near top of pile but slipping. Us mid-table and accepting of mediocrity... Am I wrong?

David Thomas
112   Posted 14/11/2010 at 00:56:28

Report abuse

Dick,

You are surely not talking about the mythical "loop" site that was the answer to all our problems according to KEIOC. You know, the same one that was talked up constantly for months by KEIOC and then suddenly when DK was shelved we have not heard anything about since from KEIOC? I presume you don't mean that site?

David O'Keefe,

"David Thomas: You asked for a difference and you have tacitly conceded the point re: Johnson. So thank you for that concession"

????????????????????????

"Dean, we won a trophy in the 90s." Dave that trophy success, like any trophy succe,s was an unforgettable experience but would you really truthfully rather the club was in the state it was in the mid 90s compared to what it is today? I know I certainly would not. I look forward to going the game now but, in the 90s, watching Everton was very depressing and was more out of love for the club that I turned up week-in, week-out, rather than enjoyment.

Tom,

Read your post. Do you not think you're over-stating your role in the whole DK debate a tad? The way you write, it you would think you had saved us from World War 3.
Tom Hughes
113   Posted 14/11/2010 at 01:39:44

Report abuse

As I said Dave.... if you'd read anything about the Inquiry you probably wouldn't make such daft remarks which only highlight your real bugbear.
David O'Keefe
114   Posted 14/11/2010 at 01:38:51

Report abuse

David Thomas: you didn't respond to the claim that the anti-Johnson protests made a difference, so I assumed that you agreed that they did. To summarise;

Spirit of Shankly: response

Green and Gold: response

Anti-Johnson: No response.

Now in order to maintain your position that fan protests make no difference, you indulged in the sin of ommission to make a consistent argument. Now Mr Thomas answer this:

Did the Anti-Johnson protests make a difference?
David O'Keefe
115   Posted 14/11/2010 at 01:51:06

Report abuse

Apologies to Michael Kenrick for raising this issue again. I should develop this argument into a fan article.
Tony I'Anson
116   Posted 14/11/2010 at 08:58:25

Report abuse

Michael (109) "I was at the Bolton game on Wednesday and spent time with a regular season ticket holder whom I started to probe about BK. I knew within minutes she had little of the facts and I'm sure that is the case for a lot of Evertonians who don't use this and other forums."

That point is so very true, to the point of being quite scary. In the same vein, I wonder how many of the local electorate actually knew the name of the Labour candidate in the past general election?

The vast majority of people's opinions about everything in life are formed on soundbites, positive PR in the media, and what their mates say. My impression is that very few are willing to dig deeper to understand what is going on. Many would not know what to say, if they had their say, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have a say! They just need the right forum that appeals to them to do it. For many it's after 10 pints down the ale house on a Saturday night. And that's fine.

In terms of your average match-going Evertonian, all they want is to win trophies with entertaining football, not pay too much for their tickets or merchandise, eat a nice steak 'n' kidney pie at half-time, go for a couple of pints to talk about the game, and take the piss out of their RS mates during the working week thereafter. I think all football fans long for this.

But to achieve this very simple pleasure in life, that's really just entertainment, we have to look past the facade that football has presented us in High Definition, Red, White and Blue scrolling banners.

Just like the supposed romance of the theatre industry, there is a more cutthroat side to football that few understand or think they can do anything about. For fans who think Bill Kenwright is great, I can understand why they think like that. A powerful PR machine is doing it's job to keep the masses reasonably happy and contented. They see Bill giving interviews on the telly, singing Everton songs in the stands, judging talent competitions on a Saturday night, having a great working relationship with the manager, bringing hot female celebrties to the Derby in Everton scarves...

These things are really good for what they are. They are the very important jobs that an elected representative of a football club should be doing. A President shall we say. Now, if we really think about it, maybe Bill is already fulfilling the role of a President, rather than that of a Chairman and major shareholder of Everton Football Club. I wonder why that might be?

As they say, the grass is always a better shade of Green elsewhere and sometimes I wish I could be happy with mid-table mediocrity, 10 pints in the Eden Vale and 6 points from the Derby. But I can't because I was in the Gwladys Street when we beat Bayern Munich 3-1 all those years ago and I saw us thrash Man Utd 5-0 when Chelsea were not even on the radar.
Colin Potter
117   Posted 14/11/2010 at 09:01:11

Report abuse

Michael Brien, I was just pointing out that we were still very close to going down in 2001; 17th is 17th, whether it was the last match or not.

By the way, I was on the terraces the last time we were relegated, I was was also at Oldham when were promoted, so don't be telling me to know my history, OK!

Ernie Baywood
118   Posted 14/11/2010 at 09:34:10

Report abuse

This is from the end of last season but how do our finances stack up?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/may/19/premier-league-finances
Colin Fitzpatrick
119   Posted 14/11/2010 at 10:25:47

Report abuse

You tell me, Ernie; you were the one who said, "Kenwright has delivered investment, what we can judge Kenwright on is our commercial performance, it's tough to get to the facts but I do see some progress."
James I'Anson
120   Posted 14/11/2010 at 10:17:16

Report abuse

Dean Adams '106'
So you agree with me then.
To blame the previous administration after11 years would be pathetic and embarrassing.
Micheal Lynch
121   Posted 14/11/2010 at 10:56:21

Report abuse

At Michael Kenrick . I think michael their is scope for an article on the affects of protests and on the mindset of the average match going evertonian when it comes to Bk. Tony 114 is correct and wed was not the only time i have witnessed this. Most fans wheter they evertonians or any other teams just want to see wins and good football. They dont come on these forums and therefore fall for the media spin that Bk gives us with his I am a blue and blah blah blah. Y?ou might hate the red shite but when their house was been affected they took action and their protests showed they yanks for their true colours. I just wish we could do same and show this guy up for what he really is .
Dave Wilson
122   Posted 14/11/2010 at 11:12:56

Report abuse

Colin

You`ve missed the point mate. Floyd's Trial wasn't really a trial ? no need for the jury to retire.

I only made the references to Marsh and Johnson et al because the thought that chairman after chairman had made fuck-up after fuck-up before you became interested just doesn't seem to have occurred to you. Everton's problems as far as you are concerned only started when Kenwright came along.

I`m not blind to Kenwright's fuck-ups or his porkies and my article was not a defence of his actions. It was a clear attempt to set the record straight, with facts.

You want Elstone and Lord Grantchester on a board you would choose personally, yet while one was was trying to convince Evertonia that Kirkby really was the only way ? even as it unravelled ? the other has clearly demonstrated he doesn't give a flying fuck about our club. He only steps into the public domain to distance himself from any talk of investment... or show Gregg up to be a lying fucker.

The excitables might want to charge around like teenagers threatening to "Take over the school" but this is a serious grown-up issue, and the only solution is serious grown-up wedge... know anybody? Of course you don't and that my friend is the answer to your question. BK is still the chairman of our club because he's the only wealthy man who actually wants to be.

I'm not now, nor have I ever been an apologist, nor ? perish the thought ? one of the self-proclaimed "enlightened". I believe fuck all Kenwright says. However, we know that after years of mismanagement by several directors and indeed chairman, that Kenwright was able to take control of Everton unchallenged ? nobody else wanted to fucken know. Therefore we don't subscribe to the bizarre notion that, after a further decade of mismanagement, our club has now become infinitely desirable to would-be investors.

To rehash a Groucho marks line, what the fuck would we want with a Chairman who was dumb enough to take us on anyway?

You are wrong Colin 4-4-2 + 4-5-1 are relevant to ALL Evertonians. Our only chance of salvation is on the pitch, if we don't get our hands on Champions League wedge then we should die trying.

Remove the board? Well, you kinda brushed over that one, Colin; run it by me again, how do we remove the board? As for calls for mutiny? I've seen first-hand how damaging it can be to a football club.

I`ll carry on going the match in the hope that somebody will do something with the ball that I could only dream of doing. If that's what you call fence-sitting then that's your prerogative, but know this, I`m the one with hope here... yours seems to have disappeared with the Kings Dock dream.

Everton Football Club will not be taken over until somebody actually wants it enough to make it happen.
James I'Anson
123   Posted 14/11/2010 at 17:27:28

Report abuse

Everton Football Club will not be taken over as long as Bill is still breathing.
Steve Smith
124   Posted 14/11/2010 at 17:56:42

Report abuse

I believe some of you want to hear specifics rebuking some or all of the points in Colin's original article.

So I'll start of with the fantasy shadow director? Fact or fiction?

David Thomas
125   Posted 14/11/2010 at 19:33:22

Report abuse

Tom,

I have not got a problem with KEIOC. What you do as a group is admirable. However, what I do have a problem with is this praising of KEIOC as if they have saved our club or played a significant role in the fortunes of the club. You have not.

David,

Yes, I think fans bad feeling towards Johnston created hostility around the club. Do I think that it was this bad feeling that led to Johnston leaving the club then? No.

Michael Lynch,

If the RBS etc had not called in their money and the Spirit of Shankley group had carried on complaining week-in, week-out do you think this would have forced the yanks out? Or do you think the only reason the yanks left was because they could not repay the banks?
David O'Keefe
126   Posted 14/11/2010 at 20:20:45

Report abuse

David Thomas: the answer you're struggling to reach re the anti-Johnson protests is yes, unless you think all that hostility had no effect on him at all.

Politics isn't a zero-sum game, it's an endless struggle with no outright victory or defeat.

Bearing that in mind, David, I think I will leave that discussion for now, as I don't think you're being particularly honest re the anti-Johnson protests. I have had to tease a response out of you on that issue, and that fact makes me believe you're more concerned about losing face, than engaging honestly with me on this topic. Shame really.
Michael Kenrick
127   Posted 14/11/2010 at 20:43:23

Report abuse

Steve (#122), Colin was putting forward for consideration the possibility that Sir Philip Green is acting to all intents and purposes as a shadow director of Everton FC Co Ltd. He is certainly not an appointed director, yet he appears to be heavily involved in key fiscal decisions.

The whole point is, nobody really knows for sure. How are you going to 'rebuke' that? (I think the word might be 'refute').

David Thomas
128   Posted 14/11/2010 at 20:56:40

Report abuse

David,

"The answer you're struggling to reach". You cheeky sod. With comments like that and you wonder why KEIOC have not got the full backing of all the fans of Everton Football Club.

My answer to your question is in my post 123. I think what you mean is that the answer you would like me to give is Yes. So basically, because I do not agree with your opinion, I am a liar? In essence, that is what it appears that you are saying. Is this correct?
David O'Keefe
129   Posted 14/11/2010 at 21:10:47

Report abuse

No, Mr Thomas, I'm saying you're evasive as I have had to chase you for a response to the question: Did the anti-Johnson protests make a difference?

I'm also calling you a coward that's afraid to admit that he got that one wrong.

As for your full backing remark, nobody ever gets full backing for anything. I do however treat with disdain those that can not be reasoned with: the Kenwright apologists. To clarify things further for you, the opinions of Bill Kenwright's apologists are irrelevant considering that they can't make a case for their man.
David Thomas
130   Posted 14/11/2010 at 21:35:51

Report abuse

No David,

When you are saying I am not being honest, you are suggesting that I am lying, therefore you are in fact calling me a liar. So now, because I do not agree with your opinion, I am a coward as well as a liar. This gets better and better.

So would that mean that everyone on a day-to-day basis who does not agree with your opinion on all matters is a lair and a coward?
David O'Keefe
131   Posted 14/11/2010 at 21:50:45

Report abuse

David Thomas: You called yourself a liar, I did no such thing.
David Thomas
132   Posted 14/11/2010 at 22:17:24

Report abuse

David,

So when you said i was not being honest. What did you mean? Also, what in your opinion is the oppisite to being honest?
Tom Hughes
133   Posted 14/11/2010 at 22:35:11

Report abuse

Dave Wilson,
So KEIOC never played a significant role? I think you'll find that the people who presided over the public Inquiry would disagree with you. KEIOC were commended by everyone for their input, and turned lots of heads throughout the process when highlighting the various issues regarding the inadequacies of DK. As I said, if you read about the Inquiry you would know about this..... but as with Colin's articles, you're fail to comment on the actual subject matter and pass off your il-informed opinion as fact. By continually exposing the lie that DK was, KEIOC also had a massive affect on the fanbase, completely reversing the initial support for the project. Polls were conducted on all the websites and in the press throughout the DK debacle, and pretty soon its support faded away. This effect was also illustrated at the AGM and EGM (which KEIOC members called) when the shareholders left the board in no doubt about the level of support for DK.... This all came about because of KEIOC and their campaign. An immeasurably greater input than your feeble efforts here. FYI: you are right in a way, "I" had no influence on the public inquiry at all, because I did not take part in it at all... as I'm not a member of KEIOC, just a supporter and friend..... Yet another assumption you have got wrong!?
David O'Keefe
134   Posted 14/11/2010 at 22:46:08

Report abuse

David Thomas: I have clarified that for you already. If you have trouble reading, i will state it again; sin of omission, being evasive re the Johnson protests.

That is what I accused you of through-out this thread. If I have to constantly ask the same question re the Johnson protests it is because you have been evasive. I have accused you of not engaging with me honestly on that issue, because you refused to give a response initially. I had to push for it.

The fact that I had to push you for a response on that issue; when you were more than happy to give one re Shankly and Green and Gold is rather revealing. To then claim that they had made no difference, a claim that you have been reluctant to make, considering your stridency towards our red brethrens groups suggests that you no longer believe in your initial position.

I also find your synthetic rage, tiresome.
David Thomas
135   Posted 14/11/2010 at 23:05:09

Report abuse

David,

No trouble with reading, just with someone suggesting that i am a liar and then not having the balls to actually come out and say it properly. With regards answering your question about Johnson you actually asked me twice and i responded to that particular question second time around i would hardly call that you constantly asking the same question. Also, when i did give you my answer you told me the answer i gave to your question was in fact not my answer and then proceed to accuse me of being a liar.
David O'Keefe
136   Posted 14/11/2010 at 23:25:24

Report abuse

Your not very bright are you , Mr Thomas. I called you a coward because you know you're wrong, but don't have the balls to admit it. Also being evasive is not the same as being a liar; I had to ask you the same question twice by your own admission, so point proven, you were being evasive.

Now you want to convince me and others that fan protests make no difference, try to convince yourself first, before convincing others.
David Thomas
137   Posted 14/11/2010 at 23:48:21

Report abuse

David,

" I called you a coward because you know you're wrong, but don't have the balls to admit it". So does that work both ways David? I don't agree with what you are saying and in my opinion you are wrong. Does that make you a coward? Also, you have claimed i have been dishonest in what i have been saying. Someone who states things that are dishonest is a liar.
David O'Keefe
138   Posted 15/11/2010 at 00:04:11

Report abuse

Thomas: this is getting nowhere, its all claims and counter-claims. I'll let the readers of TW retire to a three-star hotel overnight and allow them to reach a verdict if they can be bothered.

You've lost the plot. Do you want me to call you a liar? So you can go running to the editorial team to complain. This has gone too far.
David Thomas
139   Posted 15/11/2010 at 00:14:39

Report abuse

David,

I don't agree with what you are saying and in my opinion you are wrong. Does that make you a coward?

This is the second time i have had to ask this question as you were unwilling to answer it the first time. Is there any reason you are being so evasive and a coward by not answering this question? You must be both of these as you have accused me of being both due to not agreeing with you and only answering your question the second time you asked.
Dennis Stevens
140   Posted 14/11/2010 at 23:18:53

Report abuse

Well over a hundred posts & yet the only "defence" offered seems to be along the lines of "frankly things weren't going too well when he took over". Nothing to address the lies & incompetence of Kenwright & the rest of the Board. Not even anything to offer as some kind of ends justifying the means argument - not surprising, I suppose, as the only "success" is survival. Mediocrity reigns supreme, it seems.
David O'Keefe
141   Posted 15/11/2010 at 00:20:56

Report abuse

David Thomas:You're a coward, not because you're wrong, but beacuse you know you're wrong re the Johnson protests, but to admit that would undermine your arguments about fans protests.

Now do you understand that or do you want to keep me up all night as I explain the subtle, but important differences between evasions and lies; intellectual courage and cowardice?
David O'Keefe
142   Posted 15/11/2010 at 00:26:55

Report abuse

The problem here, Thomas, is that your using faux outrage to cover the fact that you can't sustain your arguments about fans protests.

This is an internet forum, you don't get a prize for winning a debate, so calm down. The stakes are so low its untrue, yet your kicking up a fuss over being called a "liar" by somebody you don't know.
David Thomas
143   Posted 15/11/2010 at 00:31:49

Report abuse

Dave,

Obviously in my opinion i am not wrong otherwise i would not have continued posting. Obviously you feel you are correct hence your posts. The difference is you are accusing me of being a coward as i am not agreeing with your opinion on the impact of fans protests and also being not particularly honest because of my opinion as well. However, surely you would agree i could accuse you of the exact same things you are accusing me of being by simply stating "You're a coward, not because you're wrong, but beacuse you know you're wrong re the Johnson protests".

Also, you state " is that your using faux outrage to cover the fact that you can't sustain your arguments about fans protests". I think you will find it was yourself who moved this discussion away from the issue of fans protests not myself. Please refer back to you post 124 were it was yourself who moved the topic away from fans protests towards insults towards myself about being dishonest and losing face.

Anyway i am off to bed i will respond to your next post tomorrow.
David O'Keefe
144   Posted 15/11/2010 at 00:50:51

Report abuse

Please don't bother.
Graham Atherton
145   Posted 15/11/2010 at 02:17:39

Report abuse

KEIOC has had a few iterations. Originally about preventing a move outside the city, it gradually gained acceptance by taking on another guise - Keep Everton In Walton (KEIW) or at the very least Keep Everton In North Liverpool KEINL). All plaudits to whoever runs that organisation(s) as their offensive was extremely well run and ultimately may well have contributed to the success of their aim ? though probably not to the extent that LCC and several other local councils did ? but it would be very surly to underestimate their contribution.

One of their most remarkable successes has been the annexation of fans' websites. Offering an alternative viewpoint on any of them was to attract the attention of someone's bellicose utterings, offering that your viewpoint offended the blue soul of someone within a very short period of time. That was extremely impressive, took a lot of time, people & effort. If the 'guarddogs' watching the websites weren't effective, enough one of the 'big guns' were wheeled out.

Fair enough ? it was a battle well won by people who cared a lot for the club ? no question.

KEIOC now seems to have become KKOOE ? Kick Kenwright Out Of Everton. Someone, somewhere is taking the kinship elicited in a group of people online and attempting to turn it against Kenwright. So what? Even Kenwright admits he isn't the man for the job, he's waiting for a new owner or new opportunities we all agree on that.

It is the way this is being done that is ringing alarm bells to me ? same tactics, same group. Various political groups have used these over the years and it never turned out well in the end: the right and left political wings of the '30s, in Liverpool itself; the Militant groups of the '70s & '80s (Hatton) springs to mind.

Free speech is frowned on, dissenters ridiculed. Emotive 'rabble rousing' speeches & articles issued. The debate needs a sensible, balanced, academically accurate historical summary of the last 10-20 years and then we can all make up our minds free of bias ? but we aren't going to get that are we?

Eric Myles
146   Posted 15/11/2010 at 02:00:42

Report abuse

I'm still waiting for that 'coach and horses' someone promised. It's worse than waiting for a number 10 to town on a cold winter night.
Michael Kenrick
147   Posted 15/11/2010 at 06:42:52

Report abuse

Graham (#143), bit of an unnecessary over-reaction there, in my opinion. I can't speak for other websites but anyone who wishes to discuss issues or Everton History without slinging abuse is welcome to do so here.

You say: "The debate needs a sensible, balanced, academically accurate historical summary of the last 10-20 years and then we can all make up our minds free of bias ? but we aren't going to get that are we?" I think if you combine the recent topics from Colin and Dave Wilson, you get pretty close to that ? to the extent that any of us can know what constitute an academically accurate history.

Since you presumably have such high standards, perhaps it is something you yourself could embark upon for us? We'd love to publish something like that... although I think you'll find eradicating bias in any account of history is very, very difficult.
Michael Brien
148   Posted 15/11/2010 at 07:23:17

Report abuse

David O'Keefe ? I never defended Kenwright over "Destination Kirkby", I merely pointed out that to blame one individual for all that has gone wrong at Everton is rather short-sighted. I would say that it's you that need to tread carefully.

Colin ? yes we were close to relegation in 2004 but the real nail-biting near misses were those last day of the saeson matches against Wimbledon and Coventry. In both cases we went into those games as favourites to go down. In 2004, a bad end to the season - we lost 1-2 to Bolton at Goodison and 1-5 away at Manchester City that left us in 17th ? but we were safe before the last 2 or 3 games.
Christine Foster
149   Posted 15/11/2010 at 09:43:26

Report abuse

Stop the twaddle guys, the real point is where we are and who is to blame. As Colin and Tom have been at pains to point out, the man in charge in the last 6 years has gilded the lily, treated the shareholders with disrespect, promoted a plan that would never have worked even IF the inquiry had said yes.

On his record as a competent chairman, the man has failed commercially and taken the plaudits when Moyes is acclaimed for efforts on the field. By his own admission, he cannot take the club forward, so why is he still there? Why can't another chairman be appointed? His record on trust and capability is appalling as far as I am concerned.

There is enough to review in the recent history to make the call that it's time he should go.

One last thing on the subject of fans' protest. Without debate we wouldn't have a democracy, without the ability to protest lawfully we have a dictatorship. Where is the man who will not stand for what is right?
The apathy of some Evertonians to stand up is because they aren't really bothered, thankfully there are some who are. Long may it continue and long may they have a voice on ToffeeWeb.

David O'Keefe
150   Posted 15/11/2010 at 09:56:10

Report abuse

Michael: you're defending Kenwright over Kirkby every time you bring up Peter Johnson another Chairman that favoured a move to Kirkby to deflect attention from him. Your making excuses/apologies for him in place of holding him to account, which is saddens me more than it angers me.
David Thomas
151   Posted 15/11/2010 at 10:15:35

Report abuse

Christine,

"Why can't another chairman be appointed?" ? Who in your opinion is the guy or woman who should come in and be the new chairman? Someone who is on the current board or someone completely new? Have you got someone in mind?
Colin Fitzpatrick
152   Posted 15/11/2010 at 10:50:32

Report abuse

Sadly another thread descends into chaos. Even after warnings from the editor, and many contributors, the desire, by some, to shift what is being debated is insatiable; these individuals range from the full blown apologist to those who are blissfully unaware they've managed to make a laughingstock out of themselves by failing to address a single point of why fans on TW despise Bill Kenwright.

The accusation that it is I who have missed the point is laughable; I did not write an article concerning the performance and impact of past directors and chairmen, my article concerned the current chairman and his part in a series of catastrophes, one of which would undoubtedly gain him the dubious honour of being the inaugural entrant into Everton's Hall of Shame.

Graham Atherton - KEIW? KEINL? KKOOE? Are you on drugs?
Dennis Stevens
153   Posted 15/11/2010 at 10:47:24

Report abuse

Pathetic response, David, deflecting criticism of Kenwright by trying to instigate a pointless debate about hypothetical replacements. It's the same tactic employed whenever anybody has the temerity to suggest Moyes is not the be all & end all of football management.
David Thomas
154   Posted 15/11/2010 at 10:57:07

Report abuse

Colin,

Maybe you could answer my question that I asked Christine earlier?
David Thomas
155   Posted 15/11/2010 at 11:10:22

Report abuse

Dennis,

Is it a pathetic response, because you do not have the answer to a very simple question?

I am not trying to deflect criticism away from Kenwright in the slightest. I have never said once on this website that I am a big supporter of Bill Kenwright.
Dennis Stevens
156   Posted 15/11/2010 at 11:15:46

Report abuse

No David, it's a pathetic response because it is a tactic of diverting the debate from discussing the failings of Kenwright & the current Board. If somebody makes a suggestion there will then be an irrelevant debate about the pro's & con's of that person or organisation.

You don't seem to have anything positive to say about Kenwright, nor do you seem capable of addressing any of the specific accusations made in the original post (the case against, as it were), therefore you seem bent on trying to re-route the debate away from Kenwright & onto irrelevancies. But don't worry, as you've "never said once on this website that I am a big supporter of Bill Kenwright" then your secret remains safe.

David Thomas
157   Posted 15/11/2010 at 11:26:33

Report abuse

Dennis,
Christine asked us posters on TW the following questions:-

"By his own admission he cannot take the club forward, so why is he still there? Why can't another chairman be appointed?"

In my opinion, he is still there because there does not appear to be anyone else and a new chairman has not been appointed because there does not seem to be anyone out there at present. It is a fairly straightforward question to ask ? has anyone got any alternatives, does anyone know of anyone who is willing to take over the role, has anyone got any opinions on who should be in the position?
Christine Foster
158   Posted 15/11/2010 at 11:43:17

Report abuse

If Bill Kenwright was being trutrhful that he cannot take the club forward, then why doesn't he step down? Sadly the reality is that this will only happen when a new buyer of the club is found.

However, as I have stated time and time again, that sale depends on the terms and conditions that BK and his fellow directors attach to any sale. You know, how much and what strings are attached?

Whilst he has the backing of Jon Woods and Green / Earl, it's not going to happen.

Does anyone believe Kenwright would do the honourable thing and step down?? I don't.

David Thomas. The person therefore who will become the next Chairman will be appointed by any new purchaser. The stupid comments you make asking me who that should be is a waste of time and breath. I could name several people of good standing and commercial sensibility but why bother? They will never be appointed.

There is a noose around Everton FC's neck held by men who want financial reward for their asset, a gag on the shareholders still in place. Dissension squashed, threats of taking fans to court, but hey... he's just a fan like you and me.

Nothing has changed. The same people are looking for another option to make a killing, they haven't given up.
Colin Fitzpatrick
159   Posted 15/11/2010 at 11:51:36

Report abuse

David [152], your question, from my perspective, was answered weeks ago. A transitory board with the aim of tangibly supporting the manager and overseeing the sale of the club to someone with the best interests of the club at heart, in place of simply obtaining the best return on their investment at the expense of the club's future as happened across the park a few years ago.

Many feel that the stated ownership of Everton by its directors is disingenuous, this may prove to be a contributory factor in the apparent inability to attract one named, and I stress named, prospective owner.

Last week I watched a programme on TV where garments bought for 0.80 were being retailed at up to £20. An excellent piece of business for the retailer but not for the manufacturer; they were essentially sweatshops, operating from dilapidated buildings with poor working conditions, washroom and canteen facilities but was the retailer concerned with their wellbeing or just their ability to maximise their opportunity to return the maximum amount of profit.

The sale of the club to the right owner is a massive responsibility; taking into account the current boards performance over DK are they suitable to undertake this task?

I've named the person who should be in charge of the transitory board, I named him on the basis that he is a qualified sports business professional.
David Thomas
160   Posted 15/11/2010 at 12:01:01

Report abuse

"If Bill Kenwright was being truthful that he cannot take the club forward then why doesn't he step down?"

I would imagine because at present there is no new buyer out there willing to take over the club.

If you mean why does he not step down even if there is no new buyer then who takes over the club? Robert Elstone, Woods, Geen or do we go with a begging bowl to Grantchester?
David Thomas
161   Posted 15/11/2010 at 12:18:30

Report abuse

Colin,

Thanks for the response. So you would place Elstone, Wood, and Grantchester in charge.

In your dealings with the club have Woods or Elstone given any indication that they would be willing to take up these roles? It seems to me a bit odd that people would force Kenwright out and replace him with a good friend of his that is already on the board that many people feel has performed so badly and a man who was employed by Kenwright.

Also, has Grantchester indicated in any way that he would be interested in taking more control of the club? I was under the impression that he has constantly distanced himself from the general running of the club? Or from your experience in dealing with these individuals, is he just waiting for Kenwright to leave then he would be willing to play a bigger role at the club?

Dennis Stevens
162   Posted 15/11/2010 at 12:38:48

Report abuse

David, your question may be simple but it's rather pointless ? people have previously commented on possible alternatives, but as to the whys & wherefores regarding the current incumbents, we're all largely speculating. For all we know, Kenwright may be a greater friend to Everton than any of us know ? it may be his refusal too sell his shares in isolation that prevents others leading the club from incompetent mediocrity to something potentially even worse.

Or maybe Kenwright's trying to find somebody who'll buy out Earl (& Green?) & support his continued presence on the Board, possibly still as Chairman. Who knows?

David Thomas
163   Posted 15/11/2010 at 13:00:03

Report abuse

Dennis,

Indeed who knows. Then again you could say it is rather pointless going over the same ground on a daily basis regarding Kenwright if there is no alternatives.
Ernie Baywood
164   Posted 15/11/2010 at 12:43:55

Report abuse

It's a long way back in the thread now but, Colin, you told us that financial performance is an exact science, ratios etc. Well in that link you see that turnover increased (in fact it has nearly trebled during BK's reign of terror). You see that our revenue seems reasonable for other clubs around us. Less than Spurs but on par with the likes of Villa. Debt doesn't look like as big a problem as with other clubs around us.

Personally, though, I don't see finance in football as being an exact science. I mean, the team has a greater value than it has ever had but that won't be reflected in our intangible assets with guys like Arteta and Rodwell having no book value. Goodison is now worth next to nothing ? we know that's only partly true.

The point I've been trying to make is that it's easy to criticise the fact that Kenwright has borrowed against our assets ? that, as many point out, is an irrefutable fact. But it's a one-sided story to make that statement. We did buy players with this borrowing. Kenwright's Everton has spent money on the team.

You can cry out for investment but what form do you think that will take? BK or new owner ? it's going to be debt. Debt that we can't afford. Debt that a lot of people will term as 'investment' ? for it's what it is.

If people get their way and force BK out then we might find an owner who is prepared to borrow more but it's a risky game and could send us reeling.

The only solution is to make steady progress on the pitch and off it. Yes, we might be disappointed with recent results but this team is capable of sustaining enough success to keep the commercial cogs oiled. Turnover keeps on increasing. Bar a millionaire benefactor I don't see any other solution.

Dennis Stevens
165   Posted 15/11/2010 at 13:20:58

Report abuse

David, following that sort of logic, all activity is pointless as it will all count for nothing long before humans become extinct. Anyway, whoever said there are no alternatives to Kenwright? ? Not knowing their name, address & telephone number doesn't mean they don't exist.
David Thomas
166   Posted 15/11/2010 at 13:28:47

Report abuse

Dennis,

So in your opinion it is not pointless to criticise someone on a daily basis, but it is pointless when someone asks who could be brought in instead to try and do a better job? Unless these people who so far have not been found that you mention are willing to make themselves known to the general public then I don't think they can really be classed as a real viable alternative.
Colin Fitzpatrick
167   Posted 15/11/2010 at 13:39:23

Report abuse

David [Thomas], It's just my suggestion for a board that could actually deliver what is required, new ownership and a budget for the manager, without the apparent need to consult what is essentially, through definition, a shadow director.

It's the same as you or I offering an opinion on what team Moyes should or shouldn't play; nothing more, nothing less.

In my opinion, Bill Kenwright and Robert Earl aren't fit to be on the Board of Directors of Everton Football Club. Everton need to undertake the vitally important task of securing a new owner, the aforementioned, again in my opinion, have proven themselves unsuitable for this task.

For me Robert Elstone is a qualified sports business professional who's been with the club several years, knows the club and is in house. Jon Woods is a highly experienced and successful businessman who is just as passionate an Evertonian as Bill Kenwright without the spin, the baggage and the bullshit. After speaking with Lord Granchester on many occasions I'd suggest he could play the role of ensuring that only prospective owners whose interests were in line with the historical aims and aspirations of EFC were considered. I'd also advocate the inclusion of a board member to represent the interests of the minority shareholders and the club's other stakeholders, their fanbase, which would ensure transparency and honesty; concepts which whilst paid lip service to in recent years have become an alien concept at Goodison.

Like I keep repeating, it's just my opinion ? nothing more, nothing less; you may have a different opinion, as can others.

Colin Fitzpatrick
168   Posted 15/11/2010 at 13:48:59

Report abuse

Ernie, thanks for coming back, you make some valid points. I would like to take this opportunity to say that you're confusing me with somebody else. Whilst I indeed point out that we're selling assets off, in order to utilise the proceeds, I'm not against that; I am against using the proceeds to simply buy players and not invest in the infrastructure which in the long-term would go on to generate more revenue. I have stated many times that the path of asset utilisation has been the only one available to follow under the circumstances ? it's also a concept that is by its very nature unsustainable, a statement you'll find that the CEO agreed with at the Public Inquiry into Destination Kirkby; that was two years ago and we're still following it.

You're correct that turnover has increased dramatically under Bill Kenwright, would you care to hazard a guess as to why? Would you care to look at the specific section of commercial earnings and highlight that increase over the past decade?

The team has a greater value now because market forces dictate the cost of players. If you bought a mini in 1965 for £250 and bought one today it would cost £13,000 because that's the market price today, you're not better off, you still have a mini.

I'm sure you've heard the old business adage of "turnover for vanity, profit for sanity"? We could raise £30m tomorrow and not increase our debt; I know it, you know it... and the board know it. It could be used to dramatically increase our commercial turnover but that's not going to happen under this board. What is going to happen is we'll get another deal where others appear to be paying yet we get the benefit, it used to be called getting a free lunch and we all know about those don't we?

David Thomas
169   Posted 15/11/2010 at 14:17:54

Report abuse

Colin,

Appreciate your response.

I appreciate it is only your opinion. That is all any of us can give.

If that board was put in place it may be beneficial for the club, who knows? However, I personally have never seen any indication from any of the above that they are not 100% behind the way Kenwright is currently running the club. Have you? They may in fact disagree with what he is doing but do not want to risk losing their jobs by confronting him. Who knows?

I am sure you are right that Lord Grantchester would be able to play the role that you have stated, but the big question is does he want to? From what I have heard from him, he does not seem to have much interest in doing so. However, as you have had more interaction with him, you may be able to tell me differently?
Dennis Stevens
170   Posted 15/11/2010 at 17:51:29

Report abuse

David, you're putting words in my mouth ? I've never mentioned critcising someone on a daily basis, nor do I actually do that. For all we know, an unknown party may be involved in discussions to take control of the club right now ? whether they're known to the general public has no bearing on their viability.
David Thomas
171   Posted 15/11/2010 at 19:40:52

Report abuse

Dennis, I was not specifically talking about yourself complaining on a daily bassis. What I was trying to say was that on a daily basis contributors (rightly or wrongly) criticise Kenwright. Not many people seem to have an issue with this. I ask a question regarding who people see as a viable alternative and you respond saying it's a pathetic and rather pointless question. I can't see how it is pointless to ask who people feel would be more suited to a role in their opinion if the current occupant does not fulfill their criteria. To be honest i think it is rather pointless criticising someone and then not offering any sort of solution ie an alternative to the current board.

I may not necessarily agree with Colin's choice of a new board but at least he was willing to offer what he feels and maybe others feel is a viable alternative.
Christine Foster
172   Posted 15/11/2010 at 21:34:47

Report abuse

David, you appear to believe that because there is constant and in my opinion, warranted, criticism of the board of directors that it is incumbent on those to offer a better solution.

Sadly, we will never have that option. But that does not mean that it undermines the argument regarding the performance of the board and the chairman in particular.

Everton Football club is not a democracy. We do not a voice or a choice. Shareholders don't even have a voice anymore!

Is it any surprise that some of us did not believe or share the boards vision given the disclosure of facts?

You think by simply stating who would I replace the board with and give names please, that this would add value to the debate. It wouldn't.

Its exactly tha same tack used by some to defend Moyes, who would you replace him with blah blah..

Who the club are sold too, who is chairman and who is manager are not our choice,

Or let me put it this way...
In any business, If a person running a company, lied to its shareholders, threatened them with prosecution and put the long term security and very existence at threat, would you be happy to let him continue a minute longer?
Would you let him stay on because you are not competent to select a replacement?
Would you accept the view, better the devil you know?

Take the fact that this is our club out of the argument for a moment.. look at it from a business other than football and tell me it would happen

Change has to happen
David Thomas
173   Posted 15/11/2010 at 22:41:21

Report abuse

Ok Christine,

If you get what you want and Bill Kenwright steps down as chairman of the club what happens then? Do we continue to operate as a football club without a chairman?

Also, people on this website constantly discuss players who they think are good and who they think are bad etc. For example many people have criticised Osman when playing on the right of midfield and have said we should bring in Donavan or David Bentley etc. How is this any different to offering an opinion on who should replace Kenwright or Moyes etc? As you say "Who the club are sold too, who is chairman and who is manager are not our choice" just like who the club buy or play are not our choice but people regularly on a daily basis offer their opinions. Why can people not do the same for Moyes or Kenwright for example?
Dennis Stevens
174   Posted 16/11/2010 at 00:49:42

Report abuse

David, one can discuss players based on what we know of their performances elsewhere & speculate as to whether they might bring something to the squad if we managed to sign them. This is also true regarding managers, but when people ask that question it's not in order to have a debate about other managers, it's to divert any debate about Moyes into a rather pointless panto style debate aimed at trying to argue Moyes is the best we can hope for (oh no he isn't, oh yes he is, ad infinitum).

As football supporters we are less likely to be in a position to suggest people or organisations that we would like to see take the club on (Icelandic banks would be a definite no, but I'd be happy to listen to Bill Gates make his case for ownership). It is also pointless as the question is really asked for exactly the same purpose as in any debate on Moyes, the implication being that Kenwright is the best we're likely to get, which may be true but it's desperately sad if so.

Would you prefer the Board to remain as is? If not, what changes would you like to see?

Christine Foster
175   Posted 16/11/2010 at 05:16:31

Report abuse

Thank you, Dennis, you took the words from my mouth.

If you want rules in this pointless game, David, then can I suggest that instead of asking others who they would have as manager, Chairman, board members and then debating their choice, it should be the rule that if you ask the question, "Who would you like to see as...." it should be prefixed first with the choice of the person asking the question and his/ her reasons for the choice. That would open real debate rather than attempting to set people up.

In a hypothetical world, I would be asking the likes of Richard Branson or Alan Sugar... good businessmen first...

So come on, David, front up with your best choice...

Tony I'Anson
176   Posted 16/11/2010 at 07:39:37

Report abuse

Just a thought, Christine: are the current board not being good businessmen at the moment?

They bought an asset, with a global customer base, for a song. Spent nothing on their asset since they bought. And could potentially sell for a decent profit within their lifetime.

That sounds like good business to me, for which I would congratulate any business person on such an achievement, once they had their sell-up cheque in the bank.

For me, I'd have:

Granchester
Ecclestone, Persson, Jobs, Otto
Page Bannatyne, Mittal, Arnault
Helu, Gates

Now that would be one hell of a team, not only for their combined wealth, but vast experience and business acumen acquired over a lifetime.
Source: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=500941&in_page_id=2
Tony I'Anson
177   Posted 16/11/2010 at 08:02:30

Report abuse

That is not a defence of the board for being good businessmen. I congratulate them for this. But as Evertonians, do they deserve any credit. That's the question they really need to ask themselves. How will future generations of Evertonians look back in history at this current crop of board members? That's the real question they should be asking themselves, as Evertonians.
David Thomas
178   Posted 16/11/2010 at 08:51:53

Report abuse

Dennis,

Brilliant response. You state you can discuss players and openly admit there is no difference with regards the manager choice. However, after you admit it you attempt to find a loophole to actually avoid having to answer such questions. Your not a politican are you?

Christine,

I think that is a very good idea of yours that it should be prefixed that the person asking the question has to give their answer as well.

I would have David Moyes as manager.

I would have Bill Kenwright as chairman. Do I think he is the best answer, no maybe not. Obviously it would be great if we had a multi millionaire who was willing to invest their own money rather than coming in and putting more debt on the club, ie Hicks and Gillet, but it does not appear anyone has stepped forward to take up this role. Lets be honest, if someone had in this day and age there is no way this story would not have been leaked if this was the case.

There are my answers. I await Dennis's replies to his questions "Would you prefer the Board to remain as is? If not, what changes would you like to see?" What about you Christine?
Colin Fitzpatrick
179   Posted 16/11/2010 at 10:01:31

Report abuse

Interesting that you have voted for continued mediocrity, David. David Moyes has had eight years to win something, to win anything, and he's failed to deliver. On the positive side he's turned us from perennial relegation fodder into sometime contenders for the lesser European competition, our incursions into which we have hardly struck terror into the opposition.

My opinion is however that there are extenuating circumstances; the man has done all of this with effectively no budget, one of the smallest transfer funds and squads in the top half of the Premier League and his achievements have rightfully handed him three Manager of the Season awards and Manager of the Month awards aplenty.

It would be nice before he leaves to hand him a realistic budget for two seasons so that his true effectiveness can be measured unhindered; alas I think we will forever debate the issue as it's not going to happen.

Would I have another manager in his place? No, because we're unlikely to attract anyone who can operate under the same constraints; top managers go to clubs that can provide big transfer budgets, that's why Liverpool has Roy Hodgson!!!

On the chairman front, you're happy to ignore the gross act of treason over Kirkby, the incompetence of NTL and KD the lies surrounding FSS. The stadium and the ability to increase commercial revenue is the responsibility of the board; here they've failed miserably, but you're happy to keep them in place.

Professional organisations give annual appraisals. Sit each of the directors down in your mind and run through what they have done; frightening isn't it?

TW's about opinions, that's why it works. Your opinion is Moyes and Kenwright's posse is the best available option; mine is also Moyes but we differ when it comes to the board. My opinion here is that we need a board designed to remove the unhealthy influence of a non-shareholder and sell the club to a party with the best interests of the club at heart.

Who's right? Who cares... it's a discussion on a website.

David Thomas
180   Posted 16/11/2010 at 16:06:25

Report abuse

Colin,

In my opinion, Moyes is a very good manager and, if we were to lose him, we would be a much lesser club. Look at Alex Ferguson, arguably the best manager ever, it took him 4 years to win anything at Manchester United and he had taken over at a club which I think had only finished outside the top 4 once in the previous 7 or 8 seasons before his arrival, so he was hardly joining a club in crisis. Then consider the state of the club when Smith left and Moyes took over. Look at what he has had to rebuild from. So on the point of keeping Moyes I don't think I am accepting mediocrity in the slightest.

With regards Kenwright, I would say I am being realistic rather than accepting mediocrity. Of course I like a billionaire / multi-millionaire to come to Everton take over the club and say, "Here is a load of cash that you can use to compete with the best," whilst not putting the debt on the club. However, if there was someone out there who was willing to do the above for our club, in my opinion, irrespective of exclusivity agreements etc that people might suggest are in place, I think we would have heard about it if only as a tool to put pressure on Kenwright to sell.

If, for example, Lord Grantchester was interested in taking a bigger control in the running of the club and brought with him a slice of his family's wealth, then that would be effective. However, the only things I have heard from Grantchester on these matters is when he is distancing himself from a bigger role at the club. However, I have never had any dealings with him and I believe you have, hence my earlier question to yourself:

"I am sure you are right that Lord Grantchester would be able to play the role that you have stated, but the big question is does he want to? From what I have heard from him, he does not seem to have much interest in doing so. However, as you have had more interaction with him, you may be able to tell me differently?"

Colin Fitzpatrick
181   Posted 16/11/2010 at 21:33:26

Report abuse

David, what Alex Ferguson has or hasn't done has no bearing whatsoever on David Moyes's performance. I'd love him to win something, I really would... but I can't see it happening. He's worked wonders in turning us into top half performers in the Premier League, in place of the previous relegation fodder we clearly were, but I fear this is as good as it's going to get; I hope I'm wrong. However, to let him go would be a disaster as the calibre of manager we'd attract at the moment doesn't bear thinking about...

With regard to the current front man on the board, it's realistic to understand that we're unlikely to attract a billionaire willing to invest their own capital into the club as the odds are clearly against it; only Chelsea and City have followed this route. I'd much rather see a proper cohesive business plan developed and implemented but, after a decade of nothing, the odds are also clearly against this happening by the board fronted by Bill Kenwright. I've suggested a replacement board that would be free of outside influence and would be tasked with selling the club.

Bill Kenwright told the last shareholders meeting ever held that he had employed another shyster to act on behalf of the club in the sale process; weeks later, the documents delivered to the public inquiry confirmed the complete opposite. Remove Kenwright, remove Earl and you can start taking the club forward. By not wanting change, you're voting for the status quo to be maintained; no trophies, mid-table mediocrity, ever-increasing debt, and no cohesive business plan. That's your opinion and I'll accept it.

David Thomas
182   Posted 16/11/2010 at 22:17:51

Report abuse

Colin,

Show me a viable alternative and proof that the people you mention regarding a new board, for example Grantchester have any interest in taking up a role like this, and I may have a different opinion. Without this, all I can judge it on is what Grantchester has released into the public domain and that has been that he is not interested in playing a bigger role in the running of the club.

With regards to the Ferguson and Moyes comparison, what I was trying to say is that many people have cited Moyes's failure to win a trophy in his time as a sign that he is a failure. As a manager with the record of Ferguson took 4 years to make an already good team into a trophy-winning team, I don't think the fact that Moyes has taken a club in eight years from being on it's knees to a team that is regularly competing for a European place via the league can be discarded and him judged as a failure simply because he has not won a trophy yet. I mean, out of the English trophies he has competed for in his 7 full seasons at the club, only 3 out of 21 have been won by a club outside Sky's big 4 that were established before he took over the job.
Colin Fitzpatrick
183   Posted 16/11/2010 at 23:50:04

Report abuse

David,

I don't think anybody is discarding Moyes's efforts but, after proclaiming that this is the strongest team he's had and entering this season's fray without the handicap / excuse of the appalling injuries to our paper-thin squad seen in the previous season, we're 13th in the league, out of the League Cup courtesy of a team nearly propping up the old Third Division, and after watching dire displays against Bolton and Arsenal and many others this season, I have absolutely no hope whatsoever of seeing us anywhere near the top six sides in the Premier League. We are, by example, the sheer definition of mediocrity... but I'll say it again, we're not going to attract a better manager.

When it comes to the question of the board, you're following a tried and tested pattern of asking a question then moving the goal posts. You originally asked Christine then me "who should come in and be the new chairman? Someone who is on the current board or someone completely new; have you got someone in mind?" I gave you my answer and the reasoning behind it but now it's "show me a viable alternative and proof that the people you mention regarding a new board have any interest in taking up a role like this and I may have a different opinion." Sorry to disappoint but, as I keep telling you, it's just my opinion; nothing more, nothing less.

Kenwright needs removing, Earl needs removing as, like Carter, he's neither use nor ornament.

You asked for my opinion on who could be alternative members of the board; I've given my opinion. Whether they accept or decline, I'm not really bothered, if we have to do what Liverpool did and go outside of the club then it needs to be done. It never ceases to amaze me the malaise that engulfs our fans, too frightened of change so let's embrace mediocrity; you don't see it that way ? I accept that... so we'll just have to agree to differ.
Dennis Stevens
184   Posted 16/11/2010 at 23:47:37

Report abuse

David, I appreciate you recognising my brilliance, but not so keen on being thought of as a politician! In fact, your penchant for trying to twist my comments makes me wonder whether you are not the more likely politician, or maybe spin doctor? I haven't made any admission, attempted to find any loopholes, or sought to avoid giving answers ? I've merely expressed my opinion.

I don't really care much who is on the Board, who is Chairman, Manager, or even who we sign as players ? I only care about how well they perform for Everton. Despite everything, I could put up with no changes to Board or Manager, if I felt the club was progressing.

With regard to the Board, I like to think Kenwright became a director and eventually Chairman with the best of intentions, as any supporter would. However, I'm not sure whether he's been too clever in his choice of 'friends', firstly Gregg(s) & then Earl (& Green?). I suspect he is actually a bit of a lame-duck Chairman ? perhaps that's why he sometimes seems to open his mouth merely to change feet.

My concerns about this Board are not confined to Kenwright as Chairman; being the figurehead & a higher public profile undoubtedly makes him an easy target but he's now got plenty of black marks against his name, such as to eradicate any sympathy I might feel for him. Quite honestly, I doubt we'll see the club progress unless there are some changes at Board level - a clean sweep may be required.

Mind you I was pleasantly surprised by the plans for the Park End, so perhaps our Board are showing some glimmers of engagement with the club they're supposed to be running. It's just a shame the plans don't incorporate a second tier on the Park End stand.

As for Moyes, I really like & respect the man even though I may be critical of him at times. I would love to see Moyes finally succeed in winning a trophy for Everton. I would love for him to prove himself a great manager rather than just a good one.

I also appreciate the argument that in our current circumstances it would be a tall order for any other manager to match, let alone exceed Moyes's performance on limited resources. Nonetheless, I no longer have faith that Moyes has what it takes to achieve that level of success, even if the club were able to offer him a reasonable transfer kitty each season.

Despite my misgivings, I would like to see him get the chance if we ever have the funds, & I'd love to see him succeed in the end.

Christine Foster
185   Posted 17/11/2010 at 00:59:07

Report abuse

David, I am not sure the light has come on yet, but the persistent requsts for viable alernatives to the current board when the man isn't going to let you play with his train set anyway makes the conversation irrelevant. And then having the gaul to say you will stay with what we have because there are no viable alternatives offered is a circular if not ludicrous argument!

We cannot easily remove Kenwright. He is in a comfortable position not because there are no alternatives but because to get an alternative in place you would need the board to elect one.

Only a new owner or a mass revolt and ganging up of all shareholders to remove him will work and, let's face it, that's never going to happen this side of eternity...

Unless he steps down because of the constant pressure (all we can do is try and get through his thick skin), then we have to await a new owner.

Given where we are, I would say the chances or either happening soon are slim.

But that does not mean he has my support just because he happens to be the chairman. Nor will he ever have it. It's all about credibility ? or the lack of it.
Michael Kenrick
186   Posted 17/11/2010 at 05:18:43

Report abuse

David Thomas: "I don't think the fact that Moyes has taken a club in eight years from being on it's knees to a team that is regularly competing for a European place via the league can be discarded and him judged as a failure simply because he has not won a trophy yet." ? I couldn't disagree more.

The facts are that Moyes turned Everton around very quickly ? far more rapidly than the 8 years you suggest. He had us in among the European places ? no, Champions League places ? inside of 3 seasons!

And that remains the peak of his success. Since then, we have plateaued, and in this and last season, we have started slipping backwards. Sadly, the abysmal performance in the 2009 Cup Final only serves to underline his inability to win trophies.
David Thomas
187   Posted 17/11/2010 at 08:38:18

Report abuse

Fair enough, Michael,

Having read your posts on Moyes in the past I am well aware of your feelings towards the manager so it's not really worth going much further as I don't think we will ever agree on this subject.

Same goes for Christine and Dennis. I will leave you both to post on the latest thread about Kenwright from Mr O'Keefe.
Dennis Stevens
188   Posted 17/11/2010 at 18:26:43

Report abuse

It seems clear to me that there is very little expectation that Everton will win anything whilst we have the club is in the hands of current Board, led by Kenwright, with Moyes as manager ? even amongst those who prefer the status quo. So it's really a case of those who wouldn't change anything ? for fear that things may get worse rather than improve ? and those of us who feel we must see changes if the club is to progress towards actually winning silverware again.

Of course any change involves risk, but in a world where your rivals are trying to make progress then to stand still is to fall further behind comparatively ? so there are also risks if there are no changes made. You either think the changes necessary to fulfill our ambitions are worthwhile, even with accompanying risks, or you accept mediocrity due to your fear of failure & hope that is the less risky option.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to Fan 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


Latest News

Subscribe to The Athletic, Get 40% off

Online Football Betting with Betway

Bet on Everton and get a deposit bonus with bet365 at TheFreeBetGuide.com



Recent Articles





Talking Points & General Forum

Pinned Links

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.