Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In Sign Up
Text:  A  A  A
Season 2011-12

?Margin Call...? addendum

By Lyndon Lloyd   ::  22/08/2011
 67 Comments (Last)

I have to admit that I'm a bit taken aback by the reaction to my most recent column on the current predicament at Everton... as if the majority of it, including the various rumours and conjecture, wasn't already kicking around the Web on various Everton websites and forums and has been for a while now. Much of it lay behind the Blue Union's line of questioning last week.

Rumours are just that... rumours and it would be dangerous to take too much stock in them. The story about Sheikh Mansour approaching Everton before Manchester City has been circulating for a few months now and was raised again by a shareholder on the BBC Five Live's 606 programme last night suggesting it was fact, but I can make no claim as to its veracity nor to the one about Randy Lerner.

Nor would it be prudent to hold up the two emails cited in the article as some sort of smoking gun ? they're not proof of anything on their own, just one side of the story from someone who may or may not have had an agenda of their own. I included them not as something to point to and say, "See! Here's definitive proof!" but as one more facet to the narrative I was trying to establish in making sense of all this.

The Board may well have had very good reasons for not wanting to sell Everton FC when the pressure was building on them to do so. After reading the transcript of his discussions with the Blue Union, I can imagine that it was Bill Kenwright's fierce ambition to bring the glory days back to Goodison, that he be at the helm when David Moyes lifted his first trophy as the Blues' boss. And until a year ago, that was still a tangible dream and we were all along for the ride, demanding big-money signings and high salaries to keep our best players.

Likewise, if they couldn't counsel a sale while Destination Kirkby was still alive because they were bound by the terms of the proposal then it's clear why they might have thrown obstacles in front of any negotiations with potential buyers.

But as we're squeezed into the thin end of the wedge, with our borrowing capacity frozen and Bill Kenwright at a loss as to why the club can't be sold, we Blues, desperately worried about the current predicament, just want to know the reasons why none of this was explained at the time and to get some of the answers that the Blue Union went in search of but didn't get.

With the exception of the Club's shareholders, we're not entitled to answers by any means but if Bill wants to count on the support of the supporters in what is shaping up to be a very challenging time, he may need to start filling in some gaps, particularly if some forced sales of our best players are required in the coming months.

No one should be under any illusions that running a Premier League club without the millions at the disposal of clubs like Manchester United, Arsenal, Chelsea and Manchester City is anything but a massive challenge and that the cost of doing business in those treacherous waters often entails questionable practices and keeping the fans in the dark.

But Everton needs the support of its fans right now, it needs them engaged and on board with the vision and the plan for avoiding the looming crisis and they can't do that if they don't feel like the Board is being open with them. That is all we ask at the end of the day.

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

Jim Lloyd
1   Posted 22/08/2011 at 16:12:16

Report abuse

Well said Lyndon. I was, along with many others, were taking those emails as "proof" of an imminent sale. They did, however, represent an interest by someone, if they are sincere and would be worth investigating.
I think that Kenwright has already shown by his treatment of the Shareholders and now the representatives of Blue Union, that he isn't interested in bringing the fans along with him. Yoou're so right about what it costs to run a club but, to me, hee's had so many cock-ups/economies with the truth that he's not likely to change.
Paul Columb
2   Posted 22/08/2011 at 16:32:46

Report abuse

Lyndon....what 'vision and plan'....that's the issue.
Trevor Mackie
3   Posted 22/08/2011 at 16:38:24

Report abuse

Lyndon I'm concerned.

Good as the piece was, and as you say much is already out there, it's the e-mails that sets this piece out.

I used the phrase "smoking gun" because that's how it comes across.

You appear to be back tracking now - the obvious charge is going to be this is spoofery.
Brendan McLaughlin
4   Posted 22/08/2011 at 16:34:24

Report abuse

The reason you've been taken aback by the reaction to your piece is because most people did in fact seize upon the emails as the "smoking gun". Very few adopted your considred approach that the emails themselves may have been written to suit a particular agenda.
Without the emails, however, its more a case of "Move along folks...nothing to see here"
David Barks
5   Posted 22/08/2011 at 16:47:17

Report abuse

What was so good and important was how the argument was presented. Well reasoned, well written, organized, easy to understand, without going into conspiracy theory and a bunch of name calling. That's why it was so good, because it was all the information that was presented, but most importantly in a calm and well reasoned manner. It also carried a lot more weight because of the recent revelations from the Kenwright meeting. On it's own it would have been good. But after reading that entire transcript and then your piece, it was a perfect match. Not emotional, not angry, not paranoid, not simplistic. Just really good information being provided, which continues to paint a more clear picture of the current situation. I wish those who come on here just spouting foul language and name calling would take a lesson on how a well written piece is received and the positive response it can generate, as well as how convincing it is.
Trevor Mackie
6   Posted 22/08/2011 at 16:55:45

Report abuse

David if the e-mails are torn apart as Brendan says there's nothing to see.

The "tape recording" allegation was used against the BU, similarly, the piece will lose all impact if the e-mails are discredited.

Could do with knowing how long Lyndon's had this and the veracity of the origin.
Lyndon Lloyd
7   Posted 22/08/2011 at 16:52:38

Report abuse

Trevor: You appear to be back tracking now - the obvious charge is going to be this is spoofery.

The emails are genuine, Trevor, I'm just advising caution as all they do is suggest that there have been serious approaches to buy the club, not prove that any reached an advanced stage. Nor do they reveal any of the reasons why the Board didn't proceed which could have been entirely valid.

I've hesitated to publish them for three years precisely because of the danger in citing them as damning proof — in challenging the assertion that there have been no serious offers for the Club, the Blue Union revelations just provided the right climate to add them to the narrative.
Anthony Jones
8   Posted 22/08/2011 at 17:26:12

Report abuse


You are wrong. Evidence has various levels of weight. How much weight you attribute to specific articles is down to your judgement as the reader.

Lyndon's article is one of few I have read on here that shows respect for the intelligence of the reader in that it guides and does not dictate.

Thanks again Lyndon. I will look out for your articles in future. The eloquent yet condescending "Mickey Blue Eyes" could do with following your lead.
Trevor Mackie
9   Posted 22/08/2011 at 17:38:28

Report abuse

Thanks Lyndon.

In my book that's enough.

If genuine protagonists involved in potential negotiations are making these comments about Kenwright and Elstone - it is a "smoking gun".

" the most unrealistic and uncommercial approach to a deal I have seen in 30 years!" is enough of an answer for anyone asking why EFC hasn't been sold.

The additional references to "setting hurdles that effectively put them out of the running with so many prospective purchasers" hangs the buggers.

It could be argued that since 2008 we, as a club, have suffered because of the behaviour of Kenwright and Elstone.

Good work Lyndon.

Trevor Mackie
10   Posted 22/08/2011 at 17:40:34

Report abuse

Anthony Jones

Shouldn't you be doing your homework now.
Anthony Jones
11   Posted 22/08/2011 at 17:50:37

Report abuse


is post number 9 supposed to be ironic?

(I finished my homework early old man)
Denis Richardson
12   Posted 22/08/2011 at 17:45:17

Report abuse

We 'simply' need to get an independent panel in place to run the sales process. Regardless of the rumours/truths being banded about, one thing is undeniable - having had several years in which to accomplish a sale, BK/the board have obviously falied to do so and do not seem capable of doing so.

Maybe Barclays can do a RBS and force the board to appoint somone to sell the club so as to get their money back.

Selling players to pay off debt keeps the reeper at bay for a little while, this howevers is not a long term cure. The current management simply needs to go.

Along with that I would also bring in a new manager and fresh faces in general - nothing against Moyes (big thanks for his past efforts) but the club just needs to turn over a new leaf having gone so very stale.

Oh, good articles as well Lyndon (although I was also responsible for misinterpreting the emails).

Long live the revolution!
Amit Vithlani
13   Posted 22/08/2011 at 17:43:11

Report abuse


As someone who has done M&A, I think understanding who the emails were between would add to its "bombshell nature".

If its say, between someone working at a bulge bracket investment bank and Keith Harris, Amanda Staveley, or someone known to be advising EFC, then its a real bombshell.

If its from a little known / unknown house, then, certainly reading the email I can be a little sympathetic to the view that having been led down the garden path a few times, EFC wanted a pretty strict NDA signed, and would not release any information (including an info memo - which by the way usually gets released after an NDA is signed in my experience anyway).

You mention it was from an "investment broker" - in my line of work, this is usually someone who finds an investment opportunity (usually for high net worth individuals, and operating at the lower risk spectrum of investments).

Sheikh Mansour, if one recalls correctly, used a plethora of investment banks whilst the Glaziers used JP Morgan.

I appreciate you may not be able to disclose the identities for fear of libel, but if we are to call on the Board for more transparency on the sale process then we are treading a risky line if we dont fully understand the context of evidence, which, judging by the fan reaction, has touched a very raw nerve amongst readers.
Trevor Mackie
14   Posted 22/08/2011 at 17:56:21

Report abuse

Good lad Anthony now read up on the the term "devil's advocate" then report back with what you've learned.

Pick your clothes up off the floor as well or I'll tell your mother.
Matt Traynor
15   Posted 22/08/2011 at 18:00:20

Report abuse

Amit (#13),
I've also worked in M&A and Private Equity. We were actually called "Corporate Advisors" and worked for a range of clients - companies, governments and individuals.

Usually we were under the strictest of confidentiality agreements, and it's perfectly understandable why some investors want that - many don't want the world to know they've got hundreds of millions to invest, or they'll get inundated with "investment opportunities" from a multitude of brokers. Some investors are self-publicists - the guy in Singapore who suddenly emerged as a bidder for Liverpool when Fenway came onto the scene is a renowned publicity seeker (but an exceptionally wealthy one). Whilst it's true he is a Liverpool fan, he also runs the Man Utd franchise of bars in Asia.

The way I read that email was the concern about getting NDA and NCA (I usually combined them into a NDNC agreement). Basically that's a show stopper. Why, if you are potentially on a commission of a few percent of a very large amount of money would you run the risk of one party cutting you out after you've made the introductions. It does happen.
Amit Vithlani
16   Posted 22/08/2011 at 19:15:05

Report abuse


Yes, it's perfectly reasonable to seek to keep confidential your principal, but if you approach a seller on this basis you need to be credible and it's difficult to say if this was the case since we don't know the identity of the broker in question.

A typical buy-side approach would be to turn up armed with a big pitch containing your deal credentials. That way, the seller knows you are a serious deal maker and that you are representing a serious bidder (or have the ability to secure a serious bid).

On the 3rd bullet point it looked like the broker had not totally secured a buy side mandate because he says he wanted to present the opportunity to the client, so the approach sounded a little speculative.

So, the identity is relevant because if it is an established corporate broker / deal maker saying "look, we are not going to tell you who our client is, but look at our credentials, we are a serious player", then it would be pretty foolish of EFC to have dismissed their enquiry.

If, on the other hand, the enquiry was from someone they had not heard of, or could not verify the deal credentials of, I would have taken a similar line.

However, I don't expect Lyndon to disclose the identity of those involved. Instead, I think the email may not be a "smoking gun", more of a bloody knife in the kitchen. What we need to see is whether there's a corpse or just a rare steak involved...
Johnny Warburton
17   Posted 22/08/2011 at 20:09:46

Report abuse

Gavin (from the main thread) many thanks. £24 million is a lot less than the £95 million Lyndon alluded to. I not saying its good just not the horrible nightmare I thought Lyndon's article portrayed. I am not familiar with Football accounting but I think players are "off the balance sheet" (i.e can not appear as assets on the balance sheet) Does anyone know if this is the case?
David Chait
18   Posted 22/08/2011 at 19:35:16

Report abuse

Trevor, your mail # 3 above is exactly what I was thinking but Lyndon you say the emails are real...

Lyndon, your piece said so much we know and has been said before .. BUT and its a massive but.. the emails was new evidence. Actual real new evidence! I read that like a horror movie.. but all I could think is "Are these mails true and if so by who and when?" ..

Lyndon in # 7 you have answered a big part of that... but am amazed you haven't furnished it before.. it really is earth shattering stuff.. We know about all the money and stadium broken promises (can't believe the blue union didn't dig deeper into Kings Dock as BK said something I couldn't understand or hadn't heard before - an additional 40m) .. but I really believed if a buyer rocked up with the money on a platter BK would take it and go... I'm not an apologist nor am I someone who finds guilt without facts...

This appears to be the first real fact presented that shows BK is lying about "no money out there"..

On another note what really annoys me is that the Blue Union had a great opportunity that doesn't come around every day to ask structured questions and present facts.. to me the interview didn't highlight new info.. he was being so open about some things... but they didn't dig deeper.. pity.. why don't TW EVER get an interview Michael.. I know kipper get it for being sycophants.. but if only you and Lyndon got in there instead of the BU!!
David Chait
19   Posted 22/08/2011 at 20:49:09

Report abuse

Johnny (17) new purchases are on the balance sheet to the value of the contract, which is written off over the life of the contract. Players like Rodwell and Barkley have no value on the balance sheet.

BK was right in his statement to BU about the value of the players not being reflected .. there cost less amortisation is.. not their value.
Brendan McLaughlin
20   Posted 22/08/2011 at 21:09:47

Report abuse

Daid #18
I think you missed the point of Lyndon's clarification on the emails. Simply because the emails are genuine doesn't mean that they are "earth-shattering". If Lyndon who knows more about the emails than any of us is very circumspect about the conclusions he is prepared to draw I fail to see how you can claim they are the first real fact which shows that BK is lying about "no money out there"
Johnny Warburton
21   Posted 22/08/2011 at 21:37:24

Report abuse

Thanks David
Lyndon Lloyd
22   Posted 22/08/2011 at 21:33:38

Report abuse

Brendan is right. We know money is out there — clubs get acquired all the time — even if there is probably less of it than three years ago.

But these emails demonstrate nothing in terms of how serious these buyers were and how much they were prepared to offer. It could have been Man City-type money, it could have been peanuts.

As I, Amit and Matt intimate above, the Board could have formed an impression from the early discussions that prompted them to put up legal and confidentiality barriers. We just don't know so it'd be wise not to get too carried away.
David Chait
23   Posted 22/08/2011 at 21:39:45

Report abuse

Brendan (20) I do appreciate the loose ends that are still around the mails... probably more will come to me as I calm down ... lol.. the context might be from a "false prophet" .. they might be anything really..

Saying that it does seem to me that Lyndon is placing a fair amount of significance on them as not just mails from a flat in Manchester.. maybe I'm wrong but in the mood I'm in maybe I'm placing more in them than there is.. fair enough... I normally do give more time to consider the validity of info as nothing proved in my book is nothing learned. I will go back and reread the paragraph preceding the mails to the mails themselves.. but the mails do prove that their might have been serious buyers out there that BK has let slip away.. and of course he can say no money was on the table.. cos he never let it get to that..
David Chait
24   Posted 22/08/2011 at 21:47:57

Report abuse

haha.. yeah Lyndon (22) .. no reading what Amit said and others.. now your statement.. it is clear the gaps.. geez.. if I can get wound up on a hint of underhandedness you better lock your doors.. there might be some rioting in Mersey!!
Peter Laing
25   Posted 22/08/2011 at 21:50:16

Report abuse

If there is little money out there what about the take-over at QPR last week by Tony Fernandez. QPR who have been out of the top flight for over 15 years, have an outdated stadium with limited capacity and more illustrious neighbours in the form of Chelsea, Tottenham, Arsenal and West Ham. There is still plenty of money out there beyond those hit by recession, what about the emerging billionaires from India and China. kenwright has all of these advisors seeking a buyer / investor, he is dumbing Everton down, we are a big Club, those who visited Wembley two seasons ago are testament to the fanbase and draw that still exists. Get the lying cheating bastard out of the club now.
Trevor Mackie
26   Posted 22/08/2011 at 22:01:42

Report abuse

Lyndon I think my enthusiasm and others is based upon the email statements condemning the way Kenwright and co are going about the "sale" - it provides a neat conclusion proving many of our theories and massaging all our egos.

However, while I accept your comments about not proving anything about the buyer it is what it's saying about the seller that we're jumping on.

So what of the sender?

Is this a first hand contact or friend of a friend photo copy thing?

Is the sender "important" ie would they be crucial elements organising the deal? or are they a sort of directory of enquiries - just giving a number or contact then having nothing to do with it.

Comments of this sort from a genuine "deal maker" are completely different to a tele sales operative pissed off because their commision is on the verge of being blown out.
Richard Dodd
27   Posted 22/08/2011 at 22:33:32

Report abuse

Very wise of Lyndon to back-track on those e-mails ? both seemed very questionable to me and several fans I have spoken to this evening. We are all too quick to point out items of alleged mis-information emanating from Goodison ? don`t let`s slip into the same mode just by way of making `a case for the prosecution`!
Trevor Mackie
28   Posted 22/08/2011 at 22:43:44

Report abuse

You are a cheeky monkey, Richard.

But it's true we must separate fact from emotion.
Mike Hughes
29   Posted 22/08/2011 at 22:46:53

Report abuse

I think the caller to 606 was Kunal and he's on here regularly if it's the same person.I think he was from Cheltenham.

He spoke very well on the programme and seemed knowledgeable and not the typical profile of irritating no-mark who calls in (did anyone hear the not-from-Liverpool as usual LFC fan. Complete knob.)

If I'm right, Kunal may be able to shed some light.
Brendan McLaughlin
30   Posted 22/08/2011 at 22:53:20

Report abuse

Trevor #26
Yeah that question occured to me too and maybe Lyndon will contradict me but I think given the fact that he's sat on this for some 3 years and has finally issued it with a "Fragile. Handle Very Carefully" warning.....says that he's not convinced about this.

Richard #27
Lyndon hasn't "back tracked" in the slightest. What he is saying now about the emails is exactly what he said in his original column.
Brendan McLaughlin
31   Posted 22/08/2011 at 23:19:39

Report abuse

Brendan # 30
I meant to say "completely convinced about this"
Derek Thomas
32   Posted 23/08/2011 at 03:28:49

Report abuse

NDNC's, fact and emotion not withstanding, sometimes it is wise to take a more simplistic view.

Go back to basics as it where.

Peoples nature, which goes through pride, along ego and which can, if the circumstances are right make a sharp U turn at greed.

How do the timescales stack up between DK and the Lyndon-gate Emails ( sorry I had to use the term, couldn't resist it )

Hypothetically, BK and Co. have 2 prospective deals.

In the wishful thinking world do they pick the one that might be better for the Club and no doubt come out with a few bob, or...

Take the one that gives them the most cash and yeah well we still get a new stadium out of it.

Here they are then stringing along the None DK potential buyer, while they see which way the wind blows.

And as DK went tits up this to my mind adds to the ' not conspiracy but cock up ' view of the way events pan out.
Gavin Ramejkis
33   Posted 23/08/2011 at 09:21:07

Report abuse

I always work on the basis of making decisions for myself based on what information is out there. I can choose to discredit or credit items as valid myself. That in itslef is subjective to me but rather than being dismissive of everything I try to put each item in context of other information. The emails are significant, very significant and tie in to some very pertinent information that was rumour from other sources, the disconnect of these add weight rather than suspicion as they are two distinctly differnt sources that wouldn't possibly no each others existence.

Lyndon is merely pointing out that the emails and the content of the original piece are there to read, he's not making any hard and fast statement that this is the seminal piece which is gospel. The more information is out there and the more people do the investigations that you'd hope journalists with far more access would do the more you can glean.
Graham Atherton
34   Posted 23/08/2011 at 09:33:52

Report abuse

Very embarrasing this. It is VITALLY important to get to substantiated facts in free discussions. I have read many long statements on this and other fan websites that have a grain of truth in them somewhere but are mainly expressions of emotion intended to stir emotion in others. You can get so far with such an approach but no further.
Your 'emails' were game-changing in their importance and now we have to retract all our (emotional) hopes as we learn they are in fact just intended to be an 'illustration' for your narrative - read work of fiction. Indeed we do not now know if these are even genuine emails - if you have the addresses you are hopefully trying to get some sort of comment that they are verified from the person who sent them??

To get something done we need facts not a work of well meaning fantasy.

This morning we still have no confirmation that BU3 have a recording (my opinion - there probably is one OR content aside, the authors tried to put over an image of Kenwright that suited their agenda from memory)
Also this morning it emerges that a senior member of the group has resigned citing rumours that the club is sueing them (which would fit with the silence from the club) and other pressures along with 'lack of character'.

This adds up to a damn shame if all these undercurrents reflect the true situation as the main sources of information opposing the board are suddenly looking very shakey both in their facts and in their confidence.
Craig Wilson
35   Posted 23/08/2011 at 09:52:09

Report abuse


You appear to have come out all guns blazing but left the safety catch on.

Not having the names on the emails really does let the article down and has clearly influenced a lot of peoples opinions.

Why no names on the emails? Is it a case of you dont have them, in which case you really should have left them out. If you do have them why leave them out?

If there was a libel issue am sure the people who wrote them will recognise there own emails anyway?
Tom Hughes
36   Posted 23/08/2011 at 11:30:27

Report abuse

Graham...... even if you had never seen these e-mails. The almost endless list of mishaps, missed opportunities and deceptions that have led to the club's current precarious position cannot be ignored. They are the factual context and are not fantasy nor shakey. The BU interview content, and the backdrop of the number of clubs that have secured new ownership (and still are) adds further context. Given all this and BK's well exposed disposition regarding EFC, I find it inconceiveable that there hasn't been serious interest in the club during his tenure. Hopefully, the recent upsurge in media interest might unveil further evidence in this regard.
Matt Traynor
37   Posted 23/08/2011 at 12:00:07

Report abuse

Craig (#35),
As a general point, if information is acquired through indirect sources (i.e. an email was forwarded to you by someone who was in possession of the email, but is not the originator or intended recipient) then there may be difficulties in releasing them.

Why is the name of the person important? This happened on Bluekipper during the Kirkby phase, when one of their correspondents suddenly started demanding confidential information from a firm as the name of the person involved had been "outed".

You also need to bear in mind that in some jurisdictions, emails can be admitted in a court of law, and I have seen companies successfully sued due to making commitments in email which they then tried to back-track from.

It also is entirely possible that the content of the email was allowed to be published, but with the redacted portions identifying the parties.

Hence why mutual NDAs / MNDCs are used. To get any deal done, there has to be an exchange of information between 2 or more parties. Not everyone wants their name bandied around the Internet. If you don't want to believe something because it doesn't give the name and vital statistics of the source, that's up to you. For me, the context of the emails allowed me to form my own opinion.
Graham Atherton
38   Posted 23/08/2011 at 13:06:17

Report abuse

Tom, you are a professional architect as I understand it? Do you often design a project based on word of mouth or do you demand solid proof of commitment before you begin?

I am most annoyed by these emails as they were a moment of clarity amongst a sea of murk. Almost everything we can throw at Kenwright has a not unreasonable response but you are right that there is a steady drip drip wearing away it his credibility. I am not a big fan of the saying 'no smoke without fire' as I too have a highly technical training that demands a high standard of proof before I commit my opinion ? until that point I tend to defend the status quo.

These emails were that proof and I wrote here to say so. Turns out the author did a smart about turn and retracted ? he had overstepped the limits of the authority he actually had. He didn't just say he couldn't prove they were genuine, he stated that they might even have been a complete fabrication by an individual with an agenda!!

For absolute fuck's sake!! Creditibility gone. How absolutely frustrating.

Craig Wilson
39   Posted 23/08/2011 at 13:17:57

Report abuse

@ Matt 37

That was sort of my point, the people who wrote the emails will recognise them anyway, so if there was an issue with legal/libel won't they pursue anyway?
Brendan McLaughlin
40   Posted 23/08/2011 at 13:29:50

Report abuse

Graham #38
Where exactly did Lyndon say the emails weren't genuine.?
Tom Hughes
41   Posted 23/08/2011 at 14:22:05

Report abuse

Graham.... I'm not an architect, I am an engineer...... and yes I do have to work with the facts. Quite often though I also have to speculate on the evidence when problem-solving. In this case though, the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly against this lot, whether you assess individual or collective mishaps. Lyndon stated the nature and status of the e-mails, but for me they are only one detail. The ineptitude was proven long ago.
Trevor Mackie
42   Posted 23/08/2011 at 15:39:28

Report abuse

I mean no disrespect, but the emails are everything in Lyndon's piece.

As it stands, if I was in Kenwright's corner, I'd be attacking the emails ? the words "dubious", "questionable", "agenda" among others I'd be firing off into "Middle Everton".

I don't think it's hit home just how entrenched this regime's position is with the non-internet fan; the default position is to class critics as troublemakers.

Must be spot on to make in-roads with the rank and file.
Graham Atherton
43   Posted 23/08/2011 at 16:26:05

Report abuse


He cannot/will not verify the source, he has backtracked and stated that they are "just one side of the story from someone who may or may not have had an agenda of their own." ergo - unsubstantiated, has no confidence in their content or source, possibly written by someone who has good reason to falsify them.

I'd love them to be genuine as I could finally put to bed any uncertainty that Kenwright has been making every effort to sell the club but until we have something better - no.

Tom - what you see as a weight of evidence I tend to see see as situations arising from a desire to keep the club where it is - it is odd were good intentions lead us at times. But all that founders if there has been no genuine, professional, businesslike attempt to sell the club despite all we have been told. The comments remembered by the BU report dovetail into this succinctly and that content has not yet been disputed. These emails are vital.
David Chait
44   Posted 23/08/2011 at 16:49:58

Report abuse

Interestingly the emails have been removed from the original mail.. although then verbatim pretty much repeated in text.. so it is legal stuff..

anyway on another note.. much of the article is about the margin call and Everton gambling to get to the CL.. in our own way Lyndon seems to be asking whether we are that different to Leeds and others chasing the dragon.

Well my opinion is that anyone with their ears and eyes open know we have been leveraging ourselves year after year to attract and keep talent to chase that dream. Only those that don't want to hear or simply refuse to believe the financials think there is some money being siphoned away. When the review on the financials was done everyone seemed to understand we had no more room to borrow. So why is everyone upset that that happens to be the truth?

Lyndon is right.. the gamble has not paid off. Those who say we are an over achieving club based on the fact that we are poor, are not seeing the potential that lurks in the squad that only requires decent management to extract.

So I restate - what is it in Lyndons mail then that arises the anger afresh.. for me it was the mails.. which have now all but been debunked without more context. There are flames there I have no doubt.. but right now all we have is some smoke.
Brendan McLaughlin
45   Posted 23/08/2011 at 16:52:07

Report abuse

So what you claim Lyndon to have stated is untrue?
Here's the thing Lyndon revealed the emails in a very low-key manner. He was extremely circumspect about what they "proved". The difficulty is people were so eager to sieze on anything which would dam Blue Bill that they didn't see the wood for the trees.
I accept that possibly these emails could have been issued with perhaps much more of a disclaimer but the warning signs were there. Whats the one about fools rushing in...?
Lyndon Lloyd
46   Posted 23/08/2011 at 18:13:03

Report abuse

Spot on, Brendan, thank you. Graham, you're misconstruing my earlier attempts at clarification.

The emails are 100% genuine ? nowhere did I say otherwise and it's up to you whether you believe me or not ? and I wasn't at all suggesting that the individual was fabricating anything to suit an agenda.

Again, I was trying to point out that if people are going to rush to seize upon the emails as an apparent "smoking gun" they should:

  1. consider all possibilities ? what one side viewed as ridiculous or unreasonable, the other might have had perfectly good reasons for doing and we don't have the other side of the story [I made my suspicions known in the article but that's just my opinion.]

  2. acknowledge that they (the emails) cannot and should not be held up as concrete evidence of anything other than offering proof that there has been at least one interested buyer (which I don't think Kenwright denies), but their intentions and their monetary offer are unknown
Dave Wilson
47   Posted 23/08/2011 at 21:26:42

Report abuse

Oh shit

as if things were`nt complicated enough, Two more new factions show up, "Middle Everton" and the "The non internet fan"

Who the fuck are they? Where are they? What do they stand for?

No way will I get any sleep tonight without looking under the bed first.
Lori Fekete
48   Posted 23/08/2011 at 21:03:40

Report abuse

Really well written and intelligent posts here today.

I think everyone got over excited about the emails because they wanted them to be explored thoroughly. Then (if proved to be damning), to be publicised in credible media sources for all to see.

Lyndon, do you think it will ever be possible to get to the bottom of the emails? If not by you, passed to someone who can investigate them? It will be the only way to end all the speculation.

I understand if, for legal reasons, this may not be possible but now that they are out there, I believe it needs to be explored thoroughly.
Robbie O'Neill
49   Posted 23/08/2011 at 22:40:41

Report abuse

Lyndon I must commend you on the article s well written and not dictatorial. I read it in two parts over a couple of days and was captured from the first paragraph on (couldn't read it all due to being in work).

I never questioned the emails as I have only one question when it comes to things like this: What does he have to gain?

Lyndon you have nothing to gain from publishing them or the article ? much as the Blue Union had nothing to gain personally from printing theirs. And that's really what it comes down to. Bill and the boys are playing at saving face and, until the day that all Evertonians unit and force them to do what's right, this is all we are left with.

Trevor Mackie
50   Posted 23/08/2011 at 23:18:13

Report abuse

Dave Wilson

You're a day late, you look self-serving sounding off now.

Go and sleep it off.
Dave Wilson
51   Posted 24/08/2011 at 07:56:25

Report abuse

Trevor Mackie

Not sure why you feel I was a day late, I responded as soon as I saw you claiming that this regime's position is deeply entrenched with a section of our fanbase which you refer to as "the non-internet fan".

Why not enlighten us by telling us who you are talking about?

I mean if these people don't have access to internet, how do they demonstrate their allegiance? Royal Mail?

I know who it is you are accusing of supporting this regime, I just wondered if as the self-proclaimed Devils Advocate here, you would have the courage of your conviction and come out and name them.

Hiding behind names like "Middle Everton" and "the non-internet fan" doesn't wash.
If you`ve got something to say, say it.
Michael Evans
52   Posted 24/08/2011 at 09:57:55

Report abuse

Boy this is getting complicated !

Anybody else out there finding the plots,sub-plots, "smoking guns" etc a bit difficult to follow ?

The more I read the more it seems like a cross between the X-Files and Twin Peaks.

The Truth is Out There .... isn't it ?

Trevor Mackie
53   Posted 24/08/2011 at 11:17:00

Report abuse

Dave @ 51

Yep I'll explain all.

Given the depth of your question I'll probably take a few days putting it together.

I'd like you to tune in at 9pm on Sunday ? don't miss it ? I'm including diagrams with a link to youtube where I've composed music and a video to help you along.

Dave Wilson
54   Posted 24/08/2011 at 11:36:39

Report abuse

Some Devil's Advocate...

No conviction, No credibility.

Just remember, without the matchgoer or "non-internet fans" as you refer to them. You don't have a football team to sit at your computer to whine about.

I think you`ll find most of them saw through Kenwright a long time before you did.
Gavin Ramejkis
55   Posted 24/08/2011 at 11:46:02

Report abuse

Graham #43 it could also be interpreted as ignorant of risk repeatedly and as such foolhardy in the extreme, cumulatively the gambles that have been taken have created the void which have been papered over with panic financing. By doing so this has just escalated the problem and cant be ignored as extremely poor mismanagement.

A downward spiral only gets faster which has been highlighted as a warning for some time. Interrogation of the club's accounts shows in black and white a credit rating of 0 in December 2008, by not buying any first team players for two years and losing three more it has only just risen to 19 which is still flagged as cash transactions only.

Using the global recession as a culprit flags 2008 as a key start point for the UK as it's then that the Nationwide Building Society required the first of the bail outs BUT and its a pretty big but the club had hit this credit rating already showing mismanagement prior to the beginning of the credit crunch in the UK.
Trevor Mackie
56   Posted 24/08/2011 at 16:33:49

Report abuse


"Just rermember without the matchgoer or "none internet fans" as you refer to them. You dont have a football team to sit at your computer to whine about."

You bluster this out as though someone has said otherwise - why?

Stop howling at the moon you madman.
Gary O'Flynn
57   Posted 24/08/2011 at 17:29:06

Report abuse

Lyndon .Did the club ask you to remove the screen shots of the Emails, or did you take them own of your own free will.?
Dave Wilson
58   Posted 24/08/2011 at 19:16:48

Report abuse

Madman ? probably

But I`ll never be stupid enough to think I could slide a little post in there portraying the match going Evertonian as the enemy.

Watch out for them Trevor, they are deeply intrenched with Kenwright AND they are almost certainly under your bed.

"The none internet fan" Ha Ha Ha
Trevor Mackie
59   Posted 24/08/2011 at 22:09:06

Report abuse


"But I`ll never be stupid enough to think I could slide a little post in there portraying the match going Evertonian as the enemy."

You're Inspector Clouseau, whatever manic comment you concoct next I beg you to include the word "minkey", it'll make my day.

You are a psychiatrists dream, absolutely fascinating.
Brendan McLaughlin
60   Posted 24/08/2011 at 22:55:55

Report abuse

People who use the term "real fan" are slated on this foruum. and rightly so. Differentiating some supporters as "non-internet" is equallly arrogant!
Trevor Mackie
61   Posted 25/08/2011 at 00:29:56

Report abuse


Daft thing to say.

Game going blues and the rank and file haven't been banging on about Moyes or Kenwright, even with what's going on now it's a brave man who would stand up at GP shouting the odds. Contrast that to the diatribes posted here and other web sites.

Most of my mates are over 40 but even the with their kids the web plays NO part in their supporting habits It's what's in the press and the telly.

You posted nonsense there Brendan.

Dave Wilson
62   Posted 25/08/2011 at 05:59:55

Report abuse


It would be too easy to have a field day here, but . .

It might suit you to place different people in whatever pigeon hole you think they belong . .but it aint that simple.

When I think of names who have consistantly exposed this regime on websites - particularly this one - I think of people like Gavin, Colin Fitz, Tom Hughes, The Guys from various other pressure groups whose names are too numerous to mention. I suspect every single one of them is a matchgoer.

Do you see ? they are them same people.

Any hidden alligience between the board and the matchgoer lives only in your imagination

Trevor Mackie
63   Posted 25/08/2011 at 10:39:20

Report abuse


Simple question, do you disagree about the lack of protest at the game compared to the level on here, facebook etc? despite your bizarre interpretations that's what I'm saying you buffoon.
"hidden allegiance"- feel free to include Crop Circles and/or Alien Abduction on your next instalment you buffoon.

PS. disappointed no "minkey"
Trevor Mackie
64   Posted 25/08/2011 at 11:10:56

Report abuse

Sorry 2 buffoons, should have been 1 buffoon and 1 idiot.
Dave Wilson
65   Posted 25/08/2011 at 11:33:53

Report abuse

"I dont think its hit home just how deeply entrenched this regimes position is with the non internet fan"

BTW Trevor, These protests on the internet ? how do they work ?

Let me guess you sit behind your PC getting very cross and wave a Kenwright out ! banner ?
Trevor Mackie
66   Posted 25/08/2011 at 14:47:46

Report abuse


As usual when nailed you won't answer and scoot off at yet another tangent.

It's been fun mate but the bottom line is you can't make an insult out of "non internet", I know that cuts you off at the knees but I'm bored now.

I promise I'll catch up with you on another topic when you get too "Clouseau".......keep trying.

Bye for now,

Dave Wilson
67   Posted 26/08/2011 at 09:28:25

Report abuse

Oh it was an insult alright.

Just as accusing Lyndon of backtracking was - before you backtracked yourself.

Just as telling Anthony Jones to do his homework was

Just as tellin Brendan he was talking Nonsense was

And just as trying to insinuate that the match goer cant turn on a computer is

Not bad for one thread.

You were dug out and now you`re running away.

fair do`s thats what keyboard warriors do

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment to Column articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.

© ToffeeWeb

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.