A hot sunny Saturday afternoon saw Evertonians pack into The Casa on Hope Street to hear from the Blue Union speakers and a real Everton legend – Neville Southall. Those unable to attend were afforded the opportunity to view the proceedings by George McKane’s Yellow House charity who were broadcasting the meeting live over the Internet, with cameras and production process being operated by the young people; Evertonians taking advantage of innovative technology for the benefit of their people.
Blue Union chair, Dave Kelly, opened the meeting, outlining that its scope would include the financial problems Everton continue to face, the deteriorating attitude of the club towards its fans, and the focus of the Blue Union’s efforts to achieve its stated aims for their club. For the benefit of those in attendance and on the Internet, Dave Kelly explained that Neville Southall would be expressing his own views and would be answering questions from the floor later in the meeting.
Dave Kelly explained, “We’ve lost our manager, our captain, our badge, our motto, and last but not least our Director of Communications." As the laughter and applause died down he continued, “The one thing we all want to change, hasn’t; we still have owners who are absent, owners who cannot or will not invest in their business.”
Dave Kelly pointed out that, instead of the club concentrating on what they should be doing – generating the maximum amount of money for the manager and his team – they act against the fans and attempt to play fan against fan. The plight of Richard Knights was highlighted; how his opposition to the Everton Free School resulted in the removal of his season ticket, a visit to his house by the football unit of Merseyside Police, who issued him with a recordable verbal warning.
The affiliation of the Blue Union with The Football Supporters Federation was explained, as was their involvement in the national “Twenty’s Plenty” campaign which is against the extortionate prices away fans have to pay to watch their team, fans who are seen as the most dedicated in the league.
Colin Fitzpatrick of KEIOC was then introduced. It had been almost two years since Colin had spoken at a Blue Union meeting, having stepped down for health reasons. Colin decided to speak at this meeting after discovering that he had been discussed at a meeting between the senior management team and the Shareholders Association. Whilst Dave Kelly is a shareholder, but banned from attending these meetings –banned by the people who are "open and transparent" and whose door is always open – Colin isn’t and is aggrieved by the nature of the claims made by the club’s officials which include inaccurate accusations and claims that he doesn’t even attend games.
Colin said, “Whilst I’m disappointed in some respects, it just goes to show the calibre of the people being employed by our club these day: absolute scum. I’ve missed two games this season for personal reasons, the last two; they’re just using the old ’divide and conquer’ tactic. I know enough people on the Shareholders Association Executive Committee and they know me, so that’s another failure.”
Holding up a Blue Union magazine, Colin began his presentation by explaining that it was almost two years since The Blue Union made their one and only request to the club: that they should engage a group of professionals to sell the club, naming three, one of which, Inner Circle Sports, six months later had contact with Everton and attempted to sell the club but to no avail – even though they’d sold Liverpool and many other clubs... Liverpool twice in as many years. He explained that, when that magazine was produced, the Blue Union were criticised for the negativity of their financial forecast on what was happening at the club. But, when the last accounts were produced, these concerns were vindicated when some of the worst accounts in the history of the club were revealed.
Colin explained that he had taken a back seat since then but was incensed at the treatment of Richie Knights and that, whilst defending this loyal supporter from false and malicious lies, he had spoken on the Stan Collymore show during the recent infamous phone-in when a series of questions were answered by a club official who refused to be identified. Colin explained that, when the researcher rang him and asked what he’d be speaking to Stan about, he said, “Firstly I want to address the outrageous slur that Paul Tyrrell had just placed on the fans and shareholders by stating the often-used lie that the board were abused at the last General Meeting, then I want to talk about how the club has been run into the ground by the board.” “That’s okay” the researcher replied, “But do me a favour, don’t identify Paul by name as we’ve promised not to.”
When the laughter subsided, Colin focused on the £125M value placed on the club by Tyrrell on that show, and that it was one of the reasons why the club remains unsold; the price isn’t realistic. The club, Colin explained, is worth very little and only a fool, possibly living in a Singapore bedsit [more laughter] would make any bid approaching such a figure.
Fairly explaining that it was in fact just a starting point and that a seller was unlikely to negotiate up, he then went on to explain how the club was valued the last time it was sold, how the value was arrived at by True Blue Holdings.
He displayed this graphic:
It was explained that this was the actual method used to value the club and that anybody could substitute today’s figures and see what it’s actually worth.
Once a figure is arrived at, the prospective buyer would then take other matters into account: things like the stadium issue would be used as leverage, as would the fact that the club are tied into commercial deals which anyone wanting to address and improve the poor commercial performance would need to extract Everton from these commitments.
A series of statements from the official site was displayed, all extolling the merchandise deal with Kitbag, after which it was explained the merchandise deal was separate to the Kit Supply deal, the one where all other clubs say to their manufacturers “We’re a top team in the top league in the world, how much are you paying us to wear your product.” To gasps from the audience, another graphic was displayed which revealed how much our peers are receiving from Kit Suppliers:
It was explained again that we have a merchandise deal with Kitbag, a £3M-a-season deal which covers the sale of kits and other merchandise through the two shops, Kitbag One and Kitbag Two, plus the sales through the website. The question is: Where is the money from our Kit Supply deal?
When the subject of the club badge was covered, it was explained that this was simply symptomatic of the whole approach by the club’s board. Unlike the complexities of Kirkby or the ownership of the club, which were difficult subjects for the media to cover, merely reproducing the badge is enough to make people understand it was rubbish. The graphic of the badge brought jeers whilst an alternative that took twenty minutes to produce brought cheers; what must have the badges they rejected looked like?
Colin closed by stating that, despite the problems, which all need to be addressed, the club could still be sold at the right price. The directors had not invested a single penny into this club; their only investment being a personal one in shares and, as we all know, the value of any investment can go down as well as up; you may not get back all the funds that you invest. Our board simply won’t admit their failings.
Colin presented two graphics which proved that the value of the director’s investment in Everton had plummeted due to their actions. It was the balance sheet value in 1999 as opposed to the current set of accounts.
Even with the £25m increase in TV monies, any potential buyer will have a strong case for submitting a bid which would be nowhere near the club’s own valuation.
Neville Southall gave a performance that was as professional as the ones we were used to when he was on the pitch. He similarly believed that bringing in professionals was the sensible solution and felt that, whilst the performance of the board wasn’t good enough, Bill Kenwright could still be a hero if he did the right thing by the club. He stated that, in his opinion, Sir Philip Carter was, for him, the best on the board and he trusted him for what he had done when he was involved in the club. His answers were both extremely funny and informative.
The meeting concluded with Dave and Colin confirming that The Blue Union’s focus will be on the partners whose performances are having an adverse effect on the club, these include Kitbag and The Liverpool Echo, which few in the audience disagreed with. The Echo, who were present, attracted particular attention after it was revealed that, two months ago The Blue Union had a meeting with the Sports Editor and several journalists in Old Hall Street, at which five questions were handed over. The questions cover the ownership of the club, the sources of finance, and the performance of the directors as directors. Predictably, despite knowing the truth, they have done nothing. Requests from the floor included conducting a protest at the forthcoming EGM and arranging for a company of professionals to identify prospective owners willing to purchase the club.
Reader Comments (109)
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
2 Posted 10/06/2013 at 08:29:45
I do believe the investment request whilst normal isn’t something we can force and it’s the right of the major shareholders to decide this. The value of the company in black and white is an easy read but the EPL has changed a lot and maybe you should also highlight player wagers since they took over too! We must be careful not to force out the owners for the simple reason we all want new backers but they have to add value and if you make this a “frustrated sale” it could become far worse than it is now.
On kit sponsorship, it’s very important to split it down to annual payments like you have done for EFC but not for other clubs; when you do this, we aren’t too far away from our peers. The mistake EFC made was they signed a 10-year deal; this should have been 3 years maximum with extensions based on return.
Overall in my opinion this looks a much better inclusive approach, just one small point I think you’re making a big mistake in backing Richard Knights. Yes, he is an Evertonian but his actions have put him in this situation. He is making a political statement against the Free School and using this platform for his own personal political opinion. Yes, the club have been hard on him but his actions forced their hand; on this, I agree with the club 100%.
I would also like you to ask the board what the conditions of sale are, because I have it from a well known financier in London that EFC want to see a future investment strategy that doesn’t leverage debt on the club and I’m told this also stalls many bidders. We have been close on many occasions to finding new owners but I’m told the long-term investment in EFC to make a business return along with its standing and location means it's is hard to sell as a standalone business for the simple reason the long-term investment dwarfs the asking price.
3 Posted 10/06/2013 at 09:22:54
4 Posted 10/06/2013 at 09:25:13
5 Posted 10/06/2013 at 09:44:15
Relegation is very unlikely – the team has more than enough to compete within the top eight for the next few years and I am one of the massed ranks that supports and follows the club without getting involved in the politics of the club. Clearly I don't want the club relegated nor heading toward administration.
Unfortunately, I – like the majority – have little time in viewing the club from any other viewpoint than from a purely playing angle. This is probably very naive but I am sure is the feeling of many. I will admit to reading the above intently but – unless as you say the team flounders or words like 'administration' are banded about – the 30,000 match goers will not be moved!
6 Posted 10/06/2013 at 10:31:35
I personally feel that I've found my reason to stand up and fight. Having a fan receive a recordable caution for merely speaking out is never in a million years what Sir John Moores would have caused, tolerated let alone sanctioned.
For me the line is drawn. I may not be the most useful ally, but at least I'll swell the numbers for some sanity by one (or 1½ including me "cocky's hut").
I thought that removing the "Nil Satis Nisi Optimum" was a bloody obvious "lowering of the bar" by a bunch of arseholes not fit to run an egg-n-spoon race, but having plod arrive........
I'd love to see how William Ralph would deal with these fuckin pipsqueaks.
7 Posted 10/06/2013 at 11:04:30
To question, criticise and generally pick holes goes against the grain certainly. I followed the club that way for many years, forums such as TW opened my eyes.
I believe most fans of all ages still get their info from the papers, TV and radio and they proclaim EFC as "well run".
Add, in the lower expectations hypnotised into a generation of Evertonians, Bill and Co are safe as houses for the forseeable.
8 Posted 10/06/2013 at 11:47:22
The problem in football, certainly when you look at other clubs that have seen the (financial) shit has hit the fan, is that by the time everyone DOES cotton on to what is happening, it's usually too late.
At all clubs that have been fucked by a greedy/self-serving/incompetent board, one thing is/was constant: Up until the split second everything went tits-up, everything was absolutely fine.
I'm not saying that knowing before the event allows or guarantees you can change much/anything, but I believe the more that are aware of the situation, the more pressure can be applied and the more chance you have of change.
9 Posted 10/06/2013 at 12:03:27
I'm not sure whether I can see anything other than huge swathes of ticket buyers boycotting a number of games having any serious affect on BK's running of the club. Is that a likely, possible outcome? i'm not sure.
10 Posted 10/06/2013 at 11:42:09
All the time, we are being left behind. All this time, we have been operating on a precarious financial knife-edge. Look at the figures that Colin has provided. Only Moyes has papered over our board's glaring deficiencies by continually managing to fashion good sides despite the constraints. The problems have not been resolved. Without his over-achievement earning good reward for high league placing, god only knows where we would now be. If we really have to wait for Armageddon for people to realise where we are really at, then it will be too late.
I really hope that Martinez can build on Moyes's team. Perhaps the new TV money will keep our heads above water. The problem is everyone will benefit from this cash and it looks like all our peers will comfortably outspend us again. The point is though: Some of them are no longer really our peers.... they already operate on a different level to us. Only Moyes kept them within touching distance in the league table.
Financially, commercially and in terms of assets and infrastructure we are small-time by comparison and nowhere near them. We may have already missed all the opportunities to bridge that gap.
11 Posted 10/06/2013 at 12:21:48
Wake up from your slumber man and realise that with better off-the-field performance we may begin to create the resources for Martinez to challenge those around us on the field.
12 Posted 10/06/2013 at 12:03:37
Looking back, I think I was wrong.
The club has some serious issues that it refuses to acknowledge and yet they are portrayed in the media as frugal miracle workers. The Blue Union need to raise awareness and they have certainly converted me.
13 Posted 10/06/2013 at 12:20:20
TBH I share more of your stoic "Blue Bloodism" than is worth picking fault over
But Heavens Above, I bet William Ralph would hoof Sir John in the arse if he thought for one second he'd "fiddled" with the Latin Motto on Our Proud Crest (which I suspect was a commemoration of WRD's 60 goals......)
And I can see "The Greatest Goalscorer of All Times" marching BAREFOOT into Gods Acre and grabbing a weeping "Boys Pen Billy" by his silk tie and GETTING answers out of him PRONTO !
I know the club that I love
I Love EVERTON
I want EVERTON to continue to be the Football Club that FORCES good change in the game
Look at our history for CONTRIBUTION to the game........none come even close
NONE
Unlike the Kenwright Haters I actually believe he thinks he's doing right
He isn't
BUT
He believes that he is
Bottom line is
I don't hate you Bill, so Bill, just go
You're NOT a terrible Owner (but Sir John would oust you in days), you're just not
Nil Satis Nisi Optimum
14 Posted 10/06/2013 at 12:30:28
But I've just read the Echo's coverage, it's all about Southall with the Blue Union mentioned in passing. Dave and Colin gave the paper some stick for their mis-reporting of the facts from the stage, they didn't blame the journalists but did blame the editors. Once again they're completely vindicated when you read this http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/everton-fc-legend-neville-southall-4283282
After reading that it makes you wonder what else they fail to report. Hasn't Finch Farm gone bust or something? The ESPN report is far better and is a more accurate interpretation of the event.
Time to teach the Echo a lesson?
15 Posted 10/06/2013 at 12:51:51
17 Posted 10/06/2013 at 12:57:55
The obvious action is to set up a petition and a commitment by signatories to no longer buy it. (No great loss – the rest is just dumbed-down tabloid shit anyway with 5 or six articles paying tribute to someone somewhere who has pegged it and had often very questionable links to Liverpool.)
But the problem's always in the details: How would one write the petition?
"I will not buy the Echo until........(?)................"
18 Posted 10/06/2013 at 13:24:01
19 Posted 10/06/2013 at 13:38:39
I don't understand when fans say we need investors or the board need to invest their own money as this is wrong.We need someone like Abromovich or Mansour or any other filthy rich guy who just likes football and needs a plaything. Looking for a return on an investment in a football club is a non-starter. Sponking a load of dosh for a hobby is totally different.
Everton don't need to just sell to a rich guy or consortium, we need people who are insane and have an insane amount of money to waste. That's our problem. We don't have the pulling power on an international scale to be of interest to big money men. Unless you are from your country's capital city or have world wide exposure like Man Utd or Liverpool, then it will always be a struggle to attract the super rich buyer. The Venkys or Randy Learner type of buyer are no good to anyone who needs massive amounts spent – not just on players but stadiums and infrastructure. I think Kenwright knows this and that's why he still holds out, waiting for a dream to come ture... Trouble is, it won't.
20 Posted 10/06/2013 at 13:37:17
It's not called the Red Echo for nothing and little would please them or the majority of its readership more, if Everton FC disappeared from view, leaving them to hoover up even more of the column inches. They were quite happy to see the club go to Kirkby and I'm sure they would be even happier if the club went to the wall.
To understand the coverage, you have to be aware of their motives and remind yourself of the way anything that threatens the well being of their favoured club is highlighted and campaigned against, which is in stark contrast to the way they cover Everton.
This situation isn't exclusive to the Echo, most of the local outlets have a similar agenda and it has been that way for as long as I can remember; if we can't get recognition in our own back-yard, it is very difficult if not impossible to gain national media attention.
Let me remind some that may not know, but when Everton were losing 2-0 to Wimbledon nearly 20 years ago, a fair few of the Dark Side fans left Villa Park early to attend a 'going down' party at their supporters club, they got their eye wiped that day and hopefully we will continue to be a thorn in their side for another couple of decades at least.
21 Posted 10/06/2013 at 13:52:17
If the answer is Yes, then maybe the more apathetic Blues would start to take a bit more notice.
It's clear we are the only one of the ever-presents in the PL not to have benefited from investment in some shape or form, but I am curious to see the comparison to the rest of the League. We have had to dispose of all our assets because of the lack of any investment, putting us in real danger if something went drastically wrong, such as Sky deciding to start reducing TV payments.
23 Posted 10/06/2013 at 15:01:26
24 Posted 10/06/2013 at 15:45:48
25 Posted 10/06/2013 at 16:25:57
It might give them an EXCUSE but it certainly won't give them a REASON.
Anytime violence, intimidation and vandalism are used as part of a protest - those on the receiving end have every right to say "bollocks to them, we don't have to put up with this"
PEACEFUL protest however is a COMPLETELY different.
And to say "We don't want any dealings with them because they protested against us in a well-mannered, civil and law-biding way" would imo make them look desperate and beyond ludicrous.
26 Posted 10/06/2013 at 17:05:36
27 Posted 10/06/2013 at 18:21:07
That`s c£5M a season or less that Chelsea and the Mancs spend on players in one close season.
Seems a bargain to me.Somebody should snap us up!
28 Posted 10/06/2013 at 12:12:07
I also share you "Blue Blooded = no criticise" loyalty to EVERTON, as I would say 99.9999% regular devotees at Gods Acre would.
But I was there that freezing when Howards men walked about for 90 mins and 11 Coventry lads bored a poor ref n 2 linesmen to death in surely the most dull example of "football" ever
I did not boooo
I stayed until the end
I do not regret either of the above
Recently a friend explained to me that saying enuff doesnt make you a quitter
it may just mean that you know the difference between loyalty and blind loyalty
I'm a BLUE, 3rd generation blue blood.
Mr Kenwright, you are a blue too. You're just NOT the person I want running MY EVERTON anymore
Go Please Mr Kenwright, just go
Sir John & William Ralph would not be happy, and that's MY criteria
Go Please Mr Kenwright, just go
TAXI for Kenwright !
29 Posted 10/06/2013 at 19:25:45
30 Posted 10/06/2013 at 19:05:24
But I still have my concerns about the way in which data is presented. The first thing I come to, is the revenue from kit manufacturers. Where are Everton on the list, so we can understand how we fare against other clubs? Are the figures in the list over 1, 2, 10 years? And why are there only ten teams on the list? I am sure it was not forgotten that there are twenty teams in the Premier League. So were the other teams deliberately left off, as it would show our performance in a better light? Or is this report missing something? Apologies if this has already been clarified.
My second point, is the figures between 1999 and 2012 accounts. One shows assets, and one shows debt. I can understand if we are shown the reduction in assets over that time, or increase in debts, or even both figures side by side. But I don't understand showing assets vs debt? Didn't we have 20 million in debt in 1999? And what is the general value of the squad over the same period? Is it fair to say we have sold our assets, and the money is now on the playing field where it should be? Again, I apologise if this was clarified on the day.
In some ways, I would prefer to have the raw data in front of me in order to make my own interpretations. But it seems that we get either the clubs version which is inaccurate, or the BU version above which also appears to be deliberately shown from only a certain angle.
I think Tony Marsh above has got it spot on. Looking for investors seems to be a waste of time. Anybody clever enough to make a couple of hundred million would be clever enough to know that investing 200 million in Everton is going to get you back over ten years the grand total of fuck all. Randy Lerner tried playing the 'business acumen' card, and got a good hiding and lost 100 million. With that in mind, am I surprised that we haven't been sold over the last decade? No. I don't think there are many people out there willing to throw money down a royal blue drain. Call BK whichever name you want, but I don't think he is the type of guy to sell us to a Hicks/Gillette/Magnusson/Lerner/Venky/Gaydamak etc. The shit he gets now, is not a patch on what he would get if he sold us to a cluster fuck organisation that screwed us over.
31 Posted 10/06/2013 at 19:40:43
32 Posted 10/06/2013 at 19:45:08
33 Posted 10/06/2013 at 19:46:35
34 Posted 10/06/2013 at 20:02:48
It`s worked out OK for the past dozen years and it should become easier with the increased TV dough.If not,it`s more business for the off-shore boys and so ad infinitum......
35 Posted 10/06/2013 at 20:56:15
Clubs service and manage debt and the most successful are those who have sufficient backing to underpin and guarantee large amounts of debt. An exception, Arsenal, used do do this, we're very successful then changed their business model , made a surplus, but stopped being successful.
To tie the hands of a potential rich owner or consortia by insisting on a surplus is counter productive, the irony is of course the current mismanagement which continues to leak money, yet invests very little.
36 Posted 10/06/2013 at 21:39:59
The same with the Kit Supply deal, we get fuck all, count it over as many years as you like nothing is nothing.
37 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:35:22
The BEST thing is, to write what you mean properly in the first place. Regarding the kit deal, are you not just substituting the kit manufacturers money for the merchandise money?
For example, Villa get £15 million from the kit manufacturer, but don't seem to get anything from a 'merchandise' third party. We get £3 million per season? And looking at their turnover, I cant see this £15 million advantage they have over us? Do Villa and the other clubs 'double tap' with both merchandise income and kit manufacturer income? Thanks for clarifying.
38 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:37:49
How many Premier league clubs are owned by billionaires? Answer: 3
We don't need one and are unlikely to find one. What is required is a new set owners with money and a plan such as Fenway Sports Group.
Everton haven't found a buyer for one good reason nobody is going to pay £125 Million for a club that needs a stadium; has poor commercial contracts; debt and a negative asset value. The only potential buyers are lonely bedsit dwellers.
39 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:43:18
40 Posted 11/06/2013 at 00:13:05
41 Posted 11/06/2013 at 07:36:06
Could we not invite the rejected sponsors of Bolton FC Quick Quid to be our new sponsors?
After all we seem to have a deal with a similar company keeping us afloat over the last few years.
42 Posted 11/06/2013 at 08:20:55
I completely agree with you. In the normal business world, you pay the money and walk but EFC want to see real capital before they hand over the baton. I guess this is due diligence from the current owners and if true it should be commended but it could also be a symptom of the Singapore bedsit. We must all be really careful here and not lose sight of the simple fact we want new owners but only if they can offer more that the current ones; if they cant, I’m more than happy for the current owners to continue.
Colin, I don’t agree with you on your kit deals as we get £3 million per year and I think the Villa deal is over 5 years so that’s £15 million each. I would put Villa on par with EFC as fair comparison. BU all fail to mention we lost £500k every year on merchandising before we signed this deal so immediately it yielded guaranteed cash return of £3.5 million annually. EFC probably signed a 10-year deal so they could borrow against this income. As I said before, the main problem with this deal was the length of the contract – nothing else.
44 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:21:03
Page 5 here - http://www.scribd.com/doc/24520394/EFC-1998-1999-Accounts
Page 14 here - http://www.scribd.com/doc/142842205/EFC-2011-2012-Accounts
That's okay [in advance to save time]
45 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:31:52
I won't even bother with the merchandising and kit supply question; I've lost the will to live.
46 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:57:22
I'm referring to buyers not Premier League winners.
So desperate to defend the board are you? That you must sacrifice and debase your intellect to do so?
47 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:59:10
48 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:05:04
No.
The assets have been sold to pay off the losses and overdraft.
49 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:32:09
Commercially we are a joke and so is Kenwright's valuation of the club; why is anyone surprised at how people are treated when they expose the truth??
Kenwright is just like any other dictator.
50 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:00:07
They can't possibly be that thick.Can they?
51 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:02:43
Colin makes complete sense but it isn’t the full picture. Assets have been cashed in at every level but most of the wealth generated, if not all, has been put back into the company mainly for players' wages. Moyes made a decision to keep the spine of the squad several years ago but break the wage barrier.
EFC as a business if I recall spend around £4.5/5 million every year more than they generate so selling assets including players is the only way we can survive at this level. It’s not complicated what EFC have done, in fact its very straight forward. The problem is the board have failed to bridge this gap and have admitted they can't – hence looking for a buyer/investment – but in simple terms we aren’t attractive enough business... (Note: 'business') to sustain the investment required, we need a helping hand and therein lies the problem.
Creating a frustrated sale without a benefactor in the wings doesn’t change this simple problem. Colin can cross match assets against liabilities as much as he wants but it’s the increased player wages which have crippled not just EFC but many, many clubs in the PL and Championship.
Unless you have very high match day revenue (Arsenal & Man United) or a rich benefactor (Man City & Chelsea) then finishing between 10/5th every year is a good achievement, do we like that... ? Not at all... but that’s the state of modern football: the cyclical nature of EPL has been sold to the highest bidder.
The last BU meeting was constructive compared to the previous one but you can't have meetings stating the obvious too many times; it's solutions we need and that has to come from the board... maybe with the help of fan groups... but we need to accept this problem isn’t exclusive to EFC – no matter how good or bad they have managed the business over the last decade.
When you run a business, you can’t concentrate on past mistakes: you have to deal with what’s ahead of you and moaning about KD & DK doesn’t change the day-to-day operation of the business. It's time for both parties to swallow some pride, meet each other with no hidden agenda; it’s the only way forward.
52 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:46:31
Again, we bump into the situation where it seems to be the case that 'if you are not with us, you are against us'. This couldn't be any further from the truth. I don't support the board, or any other organisation. I reserve the right to have my own point of view and be indifferent. And I couldn't give a flying fuck if that annoys some people. People have different views, get over it and stop spitting your dummies out because someone dares to see things from an alternative perspective. The board have had their failures, of that there is no argument. But posting half-truths and skewed information might fool some people, but certainly won't fool all.
53 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:15:54
It was a great event and I'm sure that everyone in attendance enjoyed themselves. Colins' presentation was informative and correct in every way.
I look forward to the next BU Public meeting.
54 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:19:04
55 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:16:29
Not all clubs have billionaire benefactors yet practically all other clubs have addressed their stadium issues to maximise match-day revenue. There are Conference League clubs with more executive boxes than EFC. There are clubs that have smaller fanbases and traditionally lower average attendances than us who have now caught up or even overtaken us. Many have secured better kit and other sponsorship deals.
These boards have grown their clubs..... some after years or decades in the lower leagues. We have done nothing by comparison. The legacy of this impotence and failed or missed opportunities may be only too apparent if Martinez fails to match or even improve on Moyes's performance. Then we'll see how far behind we have fallen.
Do you think that it is prudent for a club so short on cash to settle for one of the poorest shirt deals in the league? Are you not concerned that operating costs multiplied for no obvious reason in recent years? Do you really believe in the approachability of a board that became the first in the club's history to ban AGMs? The issues are almost endless.....
56 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:36:19
At least Alan puts forward another argument which attempts to move the debate on but in a way that I think only strengthens the original. I don’t think that you can dismiss the past so easily: "if you don’t know where you’ve been" and all that...
And as for the explanation on the wages, I think Everton’s wages are average. Whilst it’s a factor, it’s their performance commercially that appears to have hurt us the most. Wages: average; kit supply deal: sub-average... Whatever the case, what isn't in doubt is that financially the club is in a worse state now than when they bought it.
57 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:47:07
I have no doubt that the board could have made a conscious decision to improve the club's finances, but it would surely have come with detriment to the squad? How do you improve the books and keep up with the players' and agents' demands?
When I look at the figures, I can see the strategy of the board. It's that the club is cut to the bone year after year in the hope that we can break into the CL. And it has not paid off, as we have not been able to make it. But I would be more angry if for example we had healthy books, but a shit squad competing for nothing.
My yardstick for Everton's performance is looking at other clubs, and how they perform both financially and on the pitch. Do you think we are the only club to sell assets to keep up? Or take on more debt? Of course not.
It seems that there is only one way to play the Premier League game. The no doubt excellently planned business models of Arsenal and Aston Villa both prove that it's not a simple game to play in.
My main concern is that I see the board as the symptom. So changing the board will get what? An extra £5 million in kit deals over 10 years? Somehow we have to get into the Champions League, and reducing debt by lowering the wage cap doesn't seem like the right strategy to get there.
58 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:14:46
59 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:23:09
Perhaps you can explain why ten teams are missing from the shirt income graphic, and over which period each of the quoted figures are?
Again, I am not saying the figures are wrong. I would just like to have the full picture, not someones interpretation. And just to finish off, the last time I looked, this is an internet website for football fans to chat about their team. I also do not apologise if I don't take to heart what people's perceptions of me on the internet may be.
60 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:56:34
61 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:05:36
62 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:13:30
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/9911278/Aston-Villa-owner-Randy-Lerner-learning-harsh-lesson-of-Premier-League-club-in-freefall.html
63 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:59:27
65 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:18:27
But the bit that made me laugh in the article was this :
Peter Coates has regularly injected equity to keep Stoke bubbling in mid-table, Mike Ashley has poured more than £100 million in loans to Newcastle during his ownership, and Everton chairman Bill Kenwright faces an annual battle to top up the gap between spending and income.
Notice the difference between Coates, Ashley to Bill Kenwright - No amount put next to his name as he hasn't put anything in!
66 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:34:18
I personally don't want this board to improve the stadium, I just want them to sell up and leave that to hopefully someone willing to spend a huge chunk of their own money on seeing us back where we belong.
And this is where the thrust of the arguments lie. Some people believe Kenwright has deliberately took the club to this point as he 'won't let go of the train set' to coin a phrase. My personal view, is that his takeover was done in a honourable way, but he realised a while back he had bitten off far more than he can chew, as the other board members refuse to sell their shares for anything less than the 'going rate'. He has no leverage to get them to sell, nor can he find someone with that money willing to buy.
67 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:46:21
68 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:21:37
Lerner's main mistake was not finding a Moyes. Then he probably would've been running a Champions League club and filling his modern stadium with 105 boxes and no obstructed views and planning permission for expansion to over 50k.
Similarly if Newcastle had a Moyes they might have re-secured their CL place and expanded their stadium even further having built their club upto a level where they can actually enjoy bigger gates and matchday revenue even after relegation.
Similarly Sunderland, Arsenal and Spurs now operate on another level to us...... all these clubs built themselves up through the Prem era, expanding their stadiums and fanbases.
We have done nothing despite having Moyes. They were all considered either our equals or even lesser clubs for decades. They have all either caught up or left us behind. In the same perio,d our board have added no value, and delivered nothing.
69 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:56:15
Since MON parted company, Villa have gone only one way. But even if he had stayed, I think it was clear Villa could not sustain the wages and expenditure they suffered.
And this gives me food for thought. Had Lerner wanted to take us over in 2006, we would have all been jumping for joy. But did we actually dodge a bullet?
70 Posted 11/06/2013 at 22:31:13
71 Posted 11/06/2013 at 22:29:07
72 Posted 11/06/2013 at 23:04:46
73 Posted 11/06/2013 at 23:22:00
But as I have already suggested, you cannot improve your infrastructure, and increase the wage bill year on year at the same time to keep hold of your best players. I think it was far more risky to go in the direction of improving the infrastructure at the expense of the first team, than the opposite. Plenty of clubs have improved their infrastructures, and there seems to be many that have suffered for it and never really bounced back. Its certainly not a guaranteed science, so I can understand why the board have not gambled on this route.
74 Posted 11/06/2013 at 23:30:39
75 Posted 12/06/2013 at 08:14:11
That is where you're making the assumption that team and infrastructure necessarily comes from the same pot or financing mechanism. Stadium development, unlike team development, can come from long-term loans with potential for investment partners as joint ventures and or sponsorship deals. In this way, whole stadiums or single stands can be built with little or no impact on team investment.
This has been the model used up and down all leagues. It does however require a certain level of commitment and initial financial stability and know-how to happen — and, as illustrated by the inability to secure the relatively cheap Finch Farm facilities, this does not exist with the current owners. They haven't just arrived and have pursued short-term policies throughout — delivering nothing! This is indisputable.
76 Posted 12/06/2013 at 08:13:40
Yes, lesser teams have more boxes and improved stadiums but would they change places with EFC? Too right they would!
The whole point of this debate is it’s not an exact science; as much as you name others that have changed, I can name others that have fallen, notably the Sheffield teams who have old stadiums like our City. We all agree mistakes have been made and I guess the board agree with you otherwise they wouldn’t have looked at projects like KD and DK.
What also amazes me so much about this debate is when EFC couldn’t raise the funds for KD (which beaks my heart every time I stay in town) why didn’t LFC come in and take the site? Thank god they didn’t!
BU and others all have the same long-term objective and if we focus on this point, I think we can honestly make a difference.
77 Posted 12/06/2013 at 09:12:44
After 14 years, I believe it is entirely the "full picture". It isn't just a case of being in London or a single club city when ALL clubs have addressed their stadium issues.
The Sheffield analogy, while plausible, ignores the fact that neither of these clubs have ever been as big as us and that Sheffield has a much smaller population than greater Merseyside. Hence the reason why these clubs have always been yo-yo clubs with smaller gates. Even then, both have delivered better facilities for their fans than we have (as have everyone else).
Similarly, Newcastle and Sunderland may have cities to themselves but both are significantly smaller than Merseyside and before the Prem era neither had average gates higher than ours for decades... and even then only rarely ever.
Absolute minnows have made more of their resources and potential than we have and some have enjoyed the highest average attendances in their history; we couldn't even accommodate ours, or anything close.
By saying we gambled on financing team affairs instead is an oversimplification and making excuses for non-delivery IMO. As established, both investment streams can be mutually exclusive, can come from different sources and apply separately. At the same time, our wage and transfer bills hardly indicate an over indulgence compared to all our supposed peers who appear to have been able to build teams and stands at the same time; Habitually spending more than us on both.
So the "gamble" argument holds very little water, tbh. We appear to have been simply ambling along, flitting away the assets and goodwill earned by over a century of top flight footy.
You're right that many clubs might not swap our league position for what Moyes has delivered on an absolute shoestring — except of course the 6 teams above us — but I'd wager that none would want our thousands of obstructed views or meagre exec/corporate offer.... and most wouldn't want our meagre commercial income streams.
KD and DK were massive failures for different reasons. The former was a failure to deliver of epic proportions, and DK was a failure on every level — even conceptually! Both should have seen those responsible walking.
We can't keep sweeping these failures under the carpet or offering lame excuses that don't stand up to any scrutiny. We are completely rudderless as a club and have been run like a cottage industry — as BK once stated with "back of a fag packet planning".
78 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:00:41
You recall wrong mate. Last season we spent £19 million more than we generated so by selling assets (players) to the tune of £10 million the loss was reduced to 'only' £9 million.
The season before was much the same when we made a loss of £5 million after selling assets (players) of £12 million which meant we spent £17 million more than we generate.
79 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:10:10
80 Posted 12/06/2013 at 12:37:43
Newcastle: 129 million
Sunderland: 84 million
Everton: 45 million
I think this clearly shows, that their investment into both streams has come at a cost when compared to our debts. The most dangerous thing for Sunderland is that they are already running at 82% wage to turnover ratio so there doesn't seem any more room to invest in the squad to take benefit of the infrastructure in place. Newcastle have more room to maneuver but still have a huge debt. Its been no secret that Mike Ashley had Newcastle for sale for many years, but eventually gave up. He paid around 140 million to buy Newcastle in 2007, so what could be the price now?
Anyway, my point is that all teams that have been the Premiership for some time all have higher debts than us. This surely means in spite of the recognised failures that we all agree on, are we really that badly managed considering the market in which we operate? Your statements of mismanagement don't seem to stack up when we look at our figures vs our peers. I think the anger comes due to the fact that other clubs have chairman that pump their own funds in, something that our chairman simply cannot do as he doesn't have the resources. I am not angry at him for this, I knew when he came in he didn't have a pot to piss in. I just dread to think where we would be now had he not taken over at that point.
81 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:32:48
But the fact of the matter is, we don't know what is discussed at board meetings. The board could simply reject BK's resignation if he offered one. I have no doubt there is a consolidated exit strategy on paper somewhere, with facts and figures on what is required in order for an external party to buy the club. My own personal view is that they are probably asking for too much with regards to the conditions of sale, such as fundng a stadium, paying off debts etc.
82 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:40:58
Think back to King's Dock Dan, nobody was asked to sell shares when Bill had an offer to provide the funds to go ahead with the deal but instead ousted his 'mate' who had helped him buy his shares.
83 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:45:05
And tie him to a chair in the boardroom with a shotgun to his head to make sure he keeps doing the job I suppose?
84 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:46:10
I am yet to find anything about that subject other than twisted truths and old wives tales.
85 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:25:50
Eric, my figure was an mean average that the CEO gave out last year.
86 Posted 12/06/2013 at 14:01:57
You will never get the complete picture, none of us will, but the track record of financial performance is really simple, any accountant will explain it slowly to you, we have moved from assets to liabilities without improving any infrastructure, without a credible strategy to secure the future of the business, other than lets hope we get into the CL? That's your idea of the plan? The money was lost due to debt servicing and crap commercial decisions.
Stop looking for the truth, it found you long ago.
87 Posted 12/06/2013 at 14:11:03
Whose fault is it that we do not have one? Why have the shareholders Of the club, who ALL own the club, not privvy to an answer?
Don't split hairs juggling the balance of probability, ask the truth we need to know, the questions above are real, pertinent and carry the responsibility of the board to explain to each and every shareholder it's intentions and vision going forward. They have monumentally failed to acknowledge shareholders concerns who search for answers to the critical questions of who, how, what, when, cost?
88 Posted 12/06/2013 at 14:05:14
89 Posted 12/06/2013 at 14:40:55
I am hardly surprised that any strategy is not in the public domain, I don't see the business plans of any other club readily available, or any business for that matter.
You can use all the beautifully eloquent descriptions you want, but the reality is that you are no different to me. You don't have the facts, yet formulate a viewpoint on your interpretation of the situation. If you cannot accept that myself and many others will process the same data and come out with a different view, you need to rethink things. Its clear to a blind man that we have moved from assets to liabilities. But if you open your eyes a little wider you will see, that this is systemic of the Premier League. If you do not compete in this way, you will get relegated because your players and agents will not tolerate sub-par wages.
Instead of just peddling your view, which incidentally is akin to barking at the moon, why not add some substance to the debate like Tom Hughes for example? You always seem to state the obvious, albeit it in a very elegant way.
90 Posted 12/06/2013 at 14:47:40
91 Posted 12/06/2013 at 14:57:03
92 Posted 12/06/2013 at 14:57:55
By that I guess you mean that the board got shit scared at being questioned and being shown up as liars.
93 Posted 12/06/2013 at 15:04:25
94 Posted 12/06/2013 at 15:16:45
95 Posted 12/06/2013 at 15:26:28
But you prefer to be obtuse when someone posts simple to grasp comparisons and refer to the facts presented as 'opinion' and your opinion as fact.
The MO of aformentioned WUM engineer in Kazakhstan.
96 Posted 12/06/2013 at 15:50:56
Not surprised the plan for the future is withered from us ignorant masses? As I said, shareholders have a right in law to hold the board to account for the planning of the future and the duty of care the board has means it has to justify to its shareholders such plans. Go read the company act again Dan as I reminded you last time. it's not open for interpretation and I am definately not going to quote to you. Chapter and verse, as I take a few lord justices interpretations over yours any day.
Barking at the moon? My expectations are really nothing to do with you. God knows you obviously continue to believe that our club is well run and well served by the board don't you?
97 Posted 12/06/2013 at 18:21:18
And for the record then Christine, how many shares do you actually own?
I am fortunate to own some shares in the company I work for, but I don't think that somehow entitles me to walk into the board room and say "Hey guys, what the fuck is going on? Why I have not been notified about these business decisions, and why haven't you sent me the 10 year plan??"
If EFC are operating against legal industry standards, where is your litigation proceedings? Or is this another 'I only state the problems, it's not my responsibility to fix it'? I don't get why you are aiming this at me, I have no affiliation with EFC whatsoever. I am just a guy who likes chatting about his football club on a website. You talk like we are stood in the house of lords under oath, as always.
98 Posted 12/06/2013 at 19:29:40
The howling mistakes that you have acknowledged had been openly exposed by Dave Kelly and Colin Fitz at the inquiry. I don't know if you've read the transcripts but there were some truly embarrassing periods for the club at the inquiry. They were made to look like amateurs. By the time of the AGM that followed, they knew they couldn't find excuses for the failed project. They had lied repeatedly and basically hadn't done their job properly from start to finish. And this only a few years after the KD.
That is why AGMs were stopped for the first time in the club's history. ..... even world wars hadn't stopped them. Hardly indicative of a well managed club with great things to shout about to its shareholders.
99 Posted 12/06/2013 at 19:52:36
However, the 2 clubs you mention were at that time nowhere near us by any measure. They weren't our peers at all. They are now. Both had lower crowds and both had very poor stadia. In the intervening yrs these clubs have completely transformed themselves over that period by ambitious planning and development. They now both enjoy bigger crowds than us every year. Even when in the championship in Newcastle's case. These are clubs who haven't won the league in 75+ yrs. Incidentally if Ashley couldn't get £140m for a club with a modern 52k capacity stadium that sells out every week and a turnover 20-40% higher than ours, what can we expect to get? Let's face it we started s long way ahead of these clubs and now they can both outspend us more often than not. They both probably own their training grounds too. So how any of this correlates to good management is beyond me, unless of course you're making the age-old mistake of confusing the board's managerial achievements with those of Moyes.
100 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:31:09
And you are right; I have not factored all points in reference Sunderland. I have just seen their debt more than double in ten years, and their wage ratio 82%. Good infrastructure or not, that club looks to be in a mess financially. Their debt went up £16 million from 2011 - 2012, that had nothing to do with takeovers. They just seem to be spending more than they have to try and compete in this league.
Regarding your share ownership, I have absolutely no qualms with your point at all. You have always researched your information in depth, and ask some excellent questions. I would even say the same about Colin, in that both of you have done enough digging and organised enough over the years to deserve answers to your questions. I might not agree or support the approach that is taken by the BU, but I certainly support the notion that as a minimum you have the chance to ask the questions, and get the answers. My point was with regards to other people who seem to believe posting their concerns on an internet website qualifies to being presented with the clubs plans on a silver platter.
101 Posted 12/06/2013 at 23:21:53
I've no idea if Newcastle are well run at this point or not. Likewise Sunderland. However, as with our club I'm not really talking about a single point in time but a whole period. Newcastle have grown their club during the prem era to the point where they are in financial terms a bigger club than us. Sunderland have also grown to a point where they now expect to attract bigger crowds than we do. Both were far behind us to start with and they have made up that ground. I don't believe they were ever considered our equals before. This has to have been because of proactive and aggressively ambitious boards who have planned long term and tried to realise the full potential of their organisations. I don't think we have come close to that level of off-field achievement.
I think it's important to separate the roles and the relative success/failure of board and manager. Otherwise one can be too easily grouped with the other. Simply put, the board's job is to provide the funds for the Manager to be able to compete in the transfer market, the infrastructure/facilities to attract the fans and increase revenue streams from the fanbase and corporates alike. They also need to maximise profitable commercial activities and they have patently failed to deliver on any of this, even when gifted a great opportunity to resolve many of these issues. The ground issue and poor commercial performance isn't going to go away. The managers job is to identify prospective targets and obviously team affairs. Moyes has delivered far more for less than most other clubs' managers and the club benefited greatly. This shouldn't skew the argument away from the club's mistakes.
102 Posted 13/06/2013 at 12:31:28
However in you first post #845 you say “But I don't understand showing assets vs debt?”
And in post #887 you still don’t get it.
Colin #936 posted the links to the accounts as published by the Club
But still you mocked the information provided (# 047) as “posting half-truths and skewed information” and go on to claim (#066) “I made it quite clear from the start, that it did not make sense. I still don't fully understand the point of it all.”
And all along you have been pulled by other posters for being obtuse, yet now claim “it’s clear to a blind man””????
What’s that about there’s none so blind as those that refuse to see?
103 Posted 13/06/2013 at 15:12:33
1. You must always act in the best interests of your shareholders;
2. The company Directors must not enrich themselves to the detriment of the company.
The shareholder has the opportunity to vote for / or against any recommendations that the Directors make at an AGM. However, by changing the Articles of Association they have utilised a provision to prevent holding AGMs unless there is a sufficient portion to force the Directors to hold a meeting to explain their actions. That is the current situation.
However, the two clauses stated above clearly obligate the directors to act in the best interests of ALL shareholders and not to make decisions that enrich themselves at the expense of the company.
As such the company only has to give its outline in an Annual Report, which must be a complete and honest view of status (audited) – therein lies the rub; with an inactive board, a chairman that has lost credibility through his own comments regarding his commercial ability, every shareholder has to be concerned.
I draw your attention to the status of fans as customers or stakeholders; again the directors (under company law 2006) are obligated to be inclusive and inform all stakeholders of contentious issues, threats or issues relating to the company.
Okay... getting back to your post, who said a shareholder can storm an office and demand answers?? Only you... so please don't extrapolate from an exaggerated basis.
The Shareholders Association have had to utilise THEIR legal right to force a meeting after several civil requests of the club were turned down. It's a sad state of affairs when the Shareholders Association demand the Directors answer the questions they have, which for your information, are the basis of many fans concerns, but obviously not yours.
The bottom line, Dan, is that we all have an interest in what happens to our club; the Directors are custodians charged with securing the financial future of the club. The contentious issue regarding the value placed on the sale of Directors' shares (not the sale of the club, I might add, as only 51% holding is required for a controlling interest... but that alone is not enough to change the Articles of Association). There is an obvious conflict of interest when an asking price for shares is deliberately inflated for personal gain, which then would fall directly into the need to put the club first and personal gain second.
So, finally, the questions being proposed for the AGM asks for detailed responses regarding the financial running of the club and responses to why the current situation is where it is. Simply, it comes down to a matter of trust. The Shareholders Association have serious concerns and, given the track record over the past decade, you can hardly blame them or us from asking questions and expecting answers.
The board is morally bankrupt, I for one do not want it to become a financial reality in the coming years.
The club's accounts should be held up to scrutiny, especially when requests for information go unheeded, when requests for meetings are denied. Common sense would lead you to speculate the reasoning behind such decisions – especially given the track record of commercial failure.
104 Posted 15/06/2013 at 10:07:14
105 Posted 15/06/2013 at 10:42:22
LIkewise Sunderland a club that aspired to become a true big club. Had they had a Moyes they'd be fighting for European places every year.
Everton just drifted and only by employing a turd polisher for a decade have we avoided mid table obscurity or worse. DM was able to cement us as a top 7 club on the pitch. Off the pitch we're prehistoric and worst of all I think the people in charge (Elstone, Tyrell,Bill) actually think they're doing a great job.
106 Posted 15/06/2013 at 11:31:25
There are some very pertinent questions raised by posters that deserve answers, that are NOT commercially bound by any confidentiality agreement from an EFC perspective, I hope the Echo actually tell us where they were wrong because in doing so we will discover why there is so much indignation.
There is an arrogance by the management of the club that repeats and repeats blunder after blunder. With every step they make matters worse, they have a fear of telling the truth lest the millionaires are dragged into a farcical affair of just how and decisions are made at this club.
Why didn't we take the opportunity to repurchase under a mortgage with a guarantee from at least one director? Why was it ever sold in the first place? Not only did not one millionaire on our board step up and purchase with their immersible financial clout, they wouldn't even under right the mortgage.
So what do we infer from this? That the current directors have no intention of supporting the club in any way unless there is something in it for them?
Credibility? Trust? There should be a vote of no confidence in the lot of them.
107 Posted 15/06/2013 at 16:22:39
It's the same tactic the Club use, sound bites in the media spouting nonsense and nobody in the press challenges it. For example, see Alan's post #041 about the Club losing £4.5m a year when the accounts show a £9m loss which he justifies as "Eric, my figure was an mean average that the CEO gave out last year"
108 Posted 16/06/2013 at 19:03:28
"Eric, can you tell me about the terms and conditions of the funding that was proposed for the KD project, and provide your sources of information?"
Which you still have not answered. So don't talk to me about 'nonsense', your posts have no substance whatsoever as you deliberately try and deviate away from the pertinent questions.
Your views are based on old wives tales and half truths, and you seem to believe that other people will not see through this and take what you say as fact? If so, then you are even more incredible than the board of our club.
109 Posted 16/06/2013 at 19:35:20
Substance? Are you Joking?
110 Posted 16/06/2013 at 20:16:55
Just had to spend 10 mins cleaning coffee from my screen.
Let me get this straight.
Dan Brierley (208) tells Eric - "So don't talk to me about 'nonsense', your posts have no substance whatsoever as you deliberately try and deviate away from the pertinent questions"
Fuck me, not only does Mr Sam Antix take the cake, he takes the knife, plate, table and chairs as well.
I shouldn't worry too much Eric, this is basically like being accused of looking a bit pale.
By Johnny Winter.
111 Posted 16/06/2013 at 20:54:35
Although I am impressed at your ability to actually write a post that makes some kind of sense, and without using capital letters.
112 Posted 16/06/2013 at 21:20:24
113 Posted 16/06/2013 at 21:27:22
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
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 Talking Points submissions across the site.
1 Posted 10/06/2013 at 07:23:12
Another problem lies within the national media, people like Keys and Gray, who will kiss Kenwright's arse as soon as his name pops up. It's a long struggle but hopefully we will get the outcome that serves the club's best interests eventually.