Elstone annoyed with 'misleading' local press

Is 'RE' referring to the original construction and lease or subsequent council agreement? I think the reduction in the 'cost base' pales in significance to the overall price we're paying for the privilege of using it! £50+ MILLION vs a few million pounds in construction cost I'm guessing?

It's incredible he fires off at the media for such discrepancies. Perhaps they should twist the slant to the above point, which would shut him up no end. Bad stunt to try and galvanise the skeptical fan base towards the board. Beggars belief.

I thought we were spending £24 million a year on Finch Farm anyway.

Pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

Take legal action; get it out in the open.

Elstone epitomises everything that's wrong with our board in one. Arrogant demeanour, shite business sense and thinks it's fine to outright lie and deceive fans. Now he has a go at the Echo because for once they don't spin things favourably.

The day we are rid of this man the better.

Let's hope they have got the plums to print what they know.

Or the Echo is right that LCC stepped in to save Finch Farm because our billionaire owners weren't prepared to stump up £12 million to buy back Finch Farm.

Nothing fishy at all really.

Elstone is full of it. Like his pillock boss, you know he is talking shite: his lips move.

The Finch Farm rental farce surly adds fuel to that suggestion; it's pathetic we can't even own our own training facilities. In terms of the bigger picture (long-term strategy), it's a serious haemorrhage of cash.

Both teams need to steady the ship if they are going to bridge what seems to be an ever-growing gap at the top. This is true for the city as a whole... as, economically, London is running further away.

Works in Milan, saves money, would boost growth....... etc.

The smug, shifty, Skeletor looking shit-spinner must be absolutely incandescent at such an injustice, literally boiling with rage.

I can see him now... red faced, gumless gnashers gritted, roaring around Goodison hellbent on revenge, looking like fucking Ghostrider in a Gucci suit.

Build a 70,000-seater stadium and see it half empty every other week and full the others... it would just fund those shower of shite? They don't need us.

When he had the job, I thought we couldn't have had a worse CEO than tubby Keith... I was wrong.

Elstone has no credibility at all left after the badge fiasco. Close the door on your way out Robert.

The man is so out of his depth, and out of touch with supporters, it's embarrassing.

Again, keep the teary blubbing and the Hickson stories going, Bill, but you will never be a proper Evertonian.

We should have elections to the board from within the fanbase, unlike no marks who have no idea what Everton means to us.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the Dark Side fans would have poured hundreds of e-mails to the Echo and complained with vigour against EFC getting favourable treatment from LCC, quite forgetting that the Anfield project has many more skeletons and public / European money tied up awaiting the first spade to be put in the ground.

It doesn't seem to be a smart thing for the Everton CEO to do and he could find that it comes back to bite him on the bum; surely a quiet word in the Editors/Journalists ear would have sufficed?

It's like King Kong telling Mighty Joe Young "You're nothing but a great big fucking Gorilla".

One hard-faced shifty little turd.

Actually in 2010 (Feb) on Keioc I posted..

"Everything I hear from Elstone makes me think of the old song.

Never smile at a crocodile.
No, you can't get friendly with a crocodile.
Don't be taken in, by his welcome grin.
He's imagining how well you'd fit within his skin.
Never smile at a crocodile.
Never dip your hat and stop to talk awhile
Never run, walk away, say good-night, not good-day
Clear the aisle but never smile at Mister Crocodile.

He should remember though, many a fearsome Croc, ended up on the dance-floor of the Grafton, in bag-form, being danced around by some of Liverpool's more..um..open-minded ladies"

Elstone then goes on to claim to that "The clarifications and corrections provided by our media team were ignored by the reporter and the copy published was factually incorrect and grossly misleading." But then completely omits to state what these are, only giving a wishy-washy counter argument which doesnt include any facts at all, you couldn't make it up.

Finally, the "CEO Angered By Report" article on the OS incredibly enough doesn't have an option for readers to post comments; I wonder why, Mr Elstone? You're a coward of the highest order: you will be held accountable for your actions by us the supporters one day; along with Kenwright and the other Board members, your time is coming. I believe we have a psychopath running our great club.......

Finally, I would like to thank LCC for stepping in and securing this site for both Everton and the City of Liverpool. Perhaps "Trust Everton" will be able to buy into Finch Farm, we now wouldn't necessarily need to pay the full price, we, the supporters could buy a % based on the amount we raise, worth some serious thought, I reckon.

Elstone Out!

As an American Evertonian gets his local info here, is the quote above so shocking? — in that I've read so often that the local press is in the company pocket.

Can I go so far as to interpret Elstone's remarks as not about Finch Farm but some attempt at deflection, given the upcoming shareholders meeting?

The pressure builds...

1) Why are Everton not in a position to take out a commercial mortgage to buy the place outright?

2) Who owns Goodison Park?

3) Why won't the banks in this country loan Everton money?

4) Why do we need to go offshore for loans? (Answered my own question there...)

5) Why won't the Board put money in to the club?

6) And even if they are not prepared to put their own money in, why won't they even put up guarantees to banks in this country, so that we could borrow at less expensive interest rates?

7) We used to be known as the Bank of England — where have all the assets gone?

There are many more questions, but i'm sure you get the idea.

8) Is the club for sale?

9) What's the asking price?

10) What are the conditions of sale?

Purely someone will ask these questions to our inept Board of Directors.

I understand that you might not be able to name the asking price, however can you answer the following:-

11) Does the asking price accurately reflect that the club has no off-the-field assets?

12) Does it reflect the short- and long-term liabilities of over £40 million?

13) Does it reflect that the main place of business is in dire need of an overhaul, probably costing between £150 to £200 million?

14) Does it reflect the fact that the business consistently trades at a loss (under the current Board)?

Right, that's it; no more. I've finally said my piece!

I'm glad Mr Elstone has cleared that up, because from the press reports this had looked a lot like a breach of the EC law on state aid.

Perhaps to avoid further misunderstanding he could clarify why it isn't (maybe even sharing the professional advice on the subject that Liverpool's taxpayers have funded)? The fans ought to know the potential risk.

I hope the Echo follows up with questions about why a club with £80M turnover, that has just had a massive TV rights windfall can't afford to own its training facilities... why did we have to be bailed out by the council?

Because there is a lack of intelligence and honesty in the people trusted to run our club.

The amount of lies we have been told over the years is a long, long list.

Well a short answer would be (as Paul Andrews says) it FEELS like there is a real lack of intelligence and honesty because there IS a real lack of..

However I'm also interested in a question I think we (Everton supporters) have to ask ourselves - 'how did it get to this and am I in any way responsible?'

Very few of us are beyond being conned, if a person who looks 'right' comes along and says things that SOUND right, most of us will go along with it.

That imo is fair enough, the world wouldn't be much of a place if we all viewed each other with total suspicion from the first impression.

When Luvvie took over, I certainly wasn't telling people "He's slippery"

Quite the reverse, I liked the idea a 'blue' was in charge, plus I'd met him on the train going back to London after the (THE) Wimbledon game and found him (as I'm sure many have) engaging, charming, passionate etc.

However once he'd lied to me things changed.

First time, I didn't IMMEDIATELY think 'you twat - that's it!!", I was disappointed but made excuses for him.

"Maybe THIS happened or maybe THAT happened so..maybe it wasn't REALLY a lie in the strictest..."

But when he lied to me (nb: and you) a second time I thought "That is fucking IT!!"

I thought, if he was my bank manager and I caught him lying twice, I wouldn't trust him a third time, I'd close my account and fuck off.

Well I can't close my 'Everton account' but I can (and did) close my BK account.

And as he has lied over and over again since then, I feel it was a wise decision (although not one that actually achieves anything, other than me not feeling like a mug/dupe/ every six months or so).

And that brings up a question I've always been curious to know the answer/s to.

Those (supporters) who back BK, do they believe he HASN'T lied to them, or do they believe he has but they just....forgive him.

And for those for whom the latter is the case, I'm also curious to know - how many lies would he have to tell before your opinion WOULD change.

Given what we know, it has to be close to double figures

The fact that this Board have absolutely no intention of offering even a guarantee on a mortgage tells a story in itself. They didn't need to find the £13M to purchase it outright, the payments would have been a drop in the ocean over a 25-year period.

Gobshites the lot of 'em.

I'm gobsmacked at Elstone's comments, especially as he hasn't even attempted to say where the Echo were factually incorrect.

Is it embarrassment because we sold something for £2.1 million & ended up paying £1 million a year in "interest"?

Amongst the names that leapt out at me included Robert Earl, and I had a quick gander at his profile too. "BCR Sports is an investment vehicle for Robert Earl. The company is registered in the British Virgin Islands. It owns 23% of Everton Football Club."

There's lots of stuff to be had via Google if you have the time...

When the site was put up for sale in 2011 the contract rental upscale yield was documented as:

26/07/2017: 8.77%
26/07/2022: 9.92%
26/07/2027: 11.23%
26/07/2032: 12.70%
26/07/2037: 14.37%
26/07/2042: 16.26%

Gave him a wide berth after that; not sure if he didn't "flounce" after Kirkby

"The Liverpool Echo report that the terms of the deal "mean the Blues will make 'significant' savings on their regular rent payments," which were around £1.4m a year before the sale"

There are more Blues waking up to the lies every day.
I work with a few lads who would not have anything said against Kenwright up to a few months ago.They are embarrassed at how they have defended him over the years of what they can now see as lie after lie.
In my opinion the tide is turning against him.

Of course there are major similarities but there are also huge differences, a theatre is just a place to watch a play/musical/band and the audience pay to watch without worrying too much about whether the Theatre is owned or rented.

But a Football Club is an entity in itself and people do care deeply about how the club is developed or not as the case may be. Each custodian has a duty to ensure that the Club - not necessarily the players - is left in at least as decent condition as it was found but preferably it should show an improvement from the previous custodians.

BK has never bothered himself to worry about what he doing to the club, as far as he's concerned he has done his duty and the show has gone on during his watch, but the problem is we still don't really know how many opportunities to improve the club have been wasted and how much money has slipped through his fingers because he has used the Theatre model to run a Football Club.

The detractors and speculation merchants have for a long time complained about the Finch Farm deal... indeed, the Trust Everton lot – who have achieved nothing other than a website – was set up to buy Finch Farm, to achieve what the council have done instead!

Anything that improves things financially is a good thing. Well done, Everton and another knockout blow to the Blue Union and the detractors who are running out of things to complain about.

Maybe another race night or maybe the lads can get together down the pub again and discuss why it's raining today and whose fault it is.

They wasted £9 million buying Bily a few years back. Other teams seem to be able to spend millions on players we have a good squad so don't need to spend tens of millions on players... With £60 million of TV money coming in this year seems a perfect time to buy Finch Farm, you would have thought.

Kenwright is a full time theatre producer, and is never away form his London offices, Earl is Director only in name, and Jon Woods is retired.

The circus is run by Elstone and his team, who are clearly not up to the job. They won't bring in a new team because they have no interest in moving forward, the club is a distant consideration for all the directors, and a hobby for Kenwright.

As Liverpool's commercial deals are about to surpass our entire turnover - you can see how far behind we are falling.

Look at our main sponsors FFS, Crabbies and Chang!

We are wasting our time to even believe the Board have a plan for the future, they are all busy with other concerns, and are happy to survive on a season by season basis, proven by this whole Finch Farm debacle.

I suspect you may be getting near the truth as far as Kenwright is concerned. By his own admission, he has no interest in the accounts ("I'm only the Chairman") but comes to life when a manager is to be appointed or players bought and sold. He has little interest in the operational side of the business — leaving that to Elstone — but, like any fan, can`t get enough of the football aspect.
For us, that`s all about logging into ToffeeWeb; for him, it is a twice-daily chat with Davey — sorry, Roberto. After all, Baines, Jags and Fellaini are a bloody sight more exciting than badges, leases and operating costs, aren`t they?!

All of which leads me to believe that he would only want to drop his baby if his babies dropped to a lower division. Then you wouldn`t see him for dust as £125M suddenly turns into an asking price about £100M less!

But none of us would want that though......would we?

Are you sure Richard? Because he doesn't even know what he is, it seems.

Maybe he means chairman of the "Davey Moyes Supporters Club." Oh, no, that's you isn't it?

I don't know how their respective fortunes have fared since taking over, but it's certain they've not been diminished through financially supporting the club. Therefore how else could the club have bought Finch Farm? They'd need to do another TV-money pay-day loan, but that's been eating into the transfer funds...

I mean, they want their £100m profit after 13 years of doing nothing, which is absolutely fair cos at least BK's a blue... But no-one seems to be biting. Wonder why?

Can I rely on your vote?

Then again what are your views on the splendid chaps in the ivory tower including Bobby Elstone especially after he slaughters the local rag's reporting of this wonderful move by the club?

What's the difference with Finch Farm as far as Fair Play is concerned? It was no different before with the previous owners.

I am sure the commercial deal would have to stack up for the council and, if they yield around 5 or 6%, then that in today's commercial market is a good long-term investment. As far as Everton is concerned, they improved their position and that's good enough for me.

What would you say if Liverpool City Council offered to build a £250 million stadium for Everton on a commercial arrangement that benefited both right in the middle of Stanley Park — would you say no to that also? It has not done city to much harm in fact it was a main factor why they were bought and a key reason why we have not been sold.

My point is you will never be happy as like a lot of people on this site and those involved in the Blue Union etc you only want to focus on the board and its members. This arrangement has no impact on fair play whatsoever and you know that.

I have no allegiance to Bill in any way; I have allegiance to the club and therefore those that run it (until it is someone else), then they are under the banner of this great club get my support. Any grievances I may have, I keep them to myself or I inform the club as a supporter in the most constructive way I can.

A question I still ask of the Blue Union: What have you offered up as an idea to help the club? — Answer: nothing. Just constant relentless complaining. Cue the bile from the usual suspects.

You can ask Dave Kelly from the Blue Union about the race night when you confront him at the shareholders meeting.

I am surprised that a successful businessman like your good self would be championing a deal such as this.

I am no expert, but I would have thought a commercial mortgage with a deposit of around 30% would have been seen a the most prudent way forward in this case.

As the owners are looking for a sale, adding assets when we have none can only add value, and make a great addition to the sale portfolio.

Increased TV revenues of £15-20m this season alone would have provided more than enough funds for the deposit.

The Board have a duty to ensure this club is around for another 137 years – but they are clearly not concerned with future generations, as shown by every short-term commercial deal signed over the last 10 years.

Next time you are dining in the Boardroom, please pass on these concerns to Bill & Co.

If I decide to discuss with the forum on that day that is up to me, if the meeting gets out of hand, I would not take any part in it.

I decide what I do, not you and certainly not Kelly who will only want to spout the same old rhetoric of years gone by that only will get the same answers he has already had. The fact that they may not have suited his cause is a reason why he and his crew are not taken seriously by the majority of fans and I mean the vast majority.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sports/2013-03/29/c_132269636.htm

You or I don't know the plans nor what we are doing with the extra TV money... maybe they have decided to give it all to the manager; maybe the improved cash flow based on the deal will bring in some strength to assist an improved marketing of the club; maybe with the money saved on Moyes and some of the TV money and the Finch Farm improvement can bridge the operational loss and take us into the black.

We all don't know... but, rather than focus or consider positive reasons why things are done, I feel most on here only saw the negative or want to see it.

"Those that run [Everton] are under the banner of this great club and get my support. Any grievances I may have, I keep them to myself or I inform the club as a supporter in the most constructive way I can."

Therefore, there's really no point you being on a forum that is expressly to discuss Everton-related issues. Is there?

But I'll give you one last chance: Tell us exactly what it was about the Echo and Post reporting that so upset Elstone? Tell us exactly what they wrote that was "factually incorrect and grossly misleading"?

The servants have been given the night off, he has nobody to shout at so he's back here giving it loads.

This one is for him - come on now altogether now...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtiaReNsHOo

Here is your chance to show us your support by putting yourself in Robbie's position and explaining to us dumbfucks exactly what was — and I quote his exact words — "factually incorrect and grossly misleading" about that reporting?

I don't think you can... can you?

Earlier, at 839, he says " indeed, the Trust Everton lot – who have achieved nothing other than a website"

Lots of sniping and criticism of two very different fan groups, who only have the clubs best interests at heart. This got me thinking, I wonder what Paul Landon would do, as an Evertonian, to improve the situation at our club.

"Any grievances I may have, I keep them to myself or I inform the club as a supporter in the most constructive way I can."

That's that sorted then.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

I don't know the answer so I give him the benefit of the doubt. Nobody on this site slagging off him and the club know the answer either, so they decide the reporting was right because it suits them too. No more no less — and something as you say can't be a debate — it's just black and white on here, therefore I am providing the opposing view.

If LCC offered to build Everton FC a private company with multi millionaire majority shareholders a stadium in the city I would raise the same concerns as I'm certain a swathe of City rate payers would do (I live in Lancashire outside of the boundary but if my County Council funded a similar exercise I would demand answers as to why my rates were funding a millionaire and his pals).

Empty responses so far Paul and ones which still raise the underlying question as to how far you support people bearing the brand who perform so badly?

That's not debate or discussion. It's mindless sycophantic nonsense.

If the club fails to meet its rental burden for Finch Farm, who is going to pay for it?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmcumeds/509/50907.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmcumeds/509/50907.htm

Still feeling secure with your support of a questionable situation?

All Everton have done is have a change of landlord and or Everton have negotiated a better deal with them. In today's market any landlord signing up a risky covenant is more fool them.

However, I would merely suggest that the covenant has satisfied fully the requirements of the new landlord and its trustees, maybe with some owner guarantees... you just might be surprised.

Re your lack of appetite for the challenge Michael laid down. Is it in your character to give it the big one, then jib it when it comes down to it? I ask because you we're on here stating you would challenge Dave Kelly at the Blue Union meeting, you then backed off and informed ToffeeWeb posters you meant you would confront him at the shareholders meeting but have gone quiet on that one.

This bloke Landon comes across as little more than a weasel. Supports a board who make constant mistakes yet attacks people who point this out.

Bit of a weirdo if you ask me!

Aren't we in danger of disappearing up our own arses with this philosophical argument just to criticise the Club for the sake of it?

The split in our fan base is directly attributable to the management of the club that has seen for too long the benefit of the doubt been given because all the facts are never, and never likely, to be revealed.

We have a fan base that at a team level would follow them to their dying day no matter how frustrated we get. Yet when it comes to how the club is run, blind faith and trust are the maxim; no wrong done can be true.

There comes a point when, having seen so many things done badly, that many fans become cynical of anything that is said by the management of the club, right or wrong. But all we have to go on is the their previous track record and scrutiny of what facts we do get to see.

The result is the chasm between blind faith supporters of the club and those who become more cynical by the day as the club management continue to give incomplete and open ended comments on all things concerning the management of the club.

But there can never be a balance between the two sets of opinions, the current custodians of the club do not appear to be concerned that it is they who have split the fan base — not just because of the things they do, or don't do, but because they are too arrogant or lacking in the grey matter to suss it out.

The only way back to harmony is for the club to change ownership and change its approach. It's too far gone for any other solution that will bring fans back together.

There may be hundreds barricading the Philarmonic on the 26th but I think most will be there for the craik rather than any conviction that the Club is on the pathway to hell!

There is a lot of scope for that polarised position to improve namely this site and the darkside becoming less negative on everything the club do or on those that have an alternative view.

You should get into the city and see what the general opinion is there amongst a lot of Blues.

Nothing wrong with that, by the way; each to his own...

But, by contrast, it is the more vocal, active and internet savvy fans you despise who have the far greater interest in and craving for knowledge of the full picture of this club in its totally, warts un all. If Everton is to survive long term, I suspect it will be far more because of the efforts of fans like Kelly, whom you despise, than those of the mercenary 'custodians' you support, who seem bent on obfuscation, deceit and arrogance as the legacy of club mismanagement and fan division they are determined to leave us with... that's WHEN, not IF they walk away.

Think well upon that before you respond with more of your asinine banalities.

Well I don't know about Christine, but I CERTAINLY move 'in different circles' to you, because people in my circle DO give a flying fart about Kenwright and the board for one reason.

They give a shit about the future of Everton FC.

Also in my circle, people look at the facts and the evidence and come to a decision, rather than allow themselves to be duped simply because an obvious con-merchant CALLS himself 'a blue'.

And they don't blindly laud someone for years, encourage others to do the same, criticise those that don't, THEN change their fucking mind completely.

I might add that nobody in my circle was duped by all the Kirkby lies, so nobody in my circle thought it was anything other than a load of shite.

Telling us more about this circle of yours, you add (re their thoughts on our board)...

"They only ever seem to get mentioned in respect of how much they will give the manager in this or any other window"

Hmmm...this is obviously a deep-thinking, far-seeing group of individuals, I imagine they plan some events in their lives as much as 14 seconds ahead.

Finally you say..

"There may be hundreds barricading the Philarmonic on the 26th but I think most will be there for the craik rather than any conviction that the Club is on the pathway to hell!"

Do you really?

Well why not tell us WHY you 'think' this.

Because without any attempt to justify this statement, it is simply insulting all those who will be there to make their voices heard, because they feel passionately about how the club is being 'run'.

I genuinely believe a statement like that, one that questions the convictions of others yet gives NO reason for doing so, says absolutely nothing about them and tells us so much about you.

Specifically what?

Simple, given the choice of saying nothing OR saying absolutely anything, even if it is dumb as fuck and offers no facts or substantiation and as 'argument' could be picked apart by a child, you will always choose the latter.

And it's 'craic' you dolt.

"Darkside of the support"?! Put your lightsaber away Paul. Christ Almighty!

Very difficult to progress an argument when there is nothing to bounce ideas off. It's a little like attempting to prove that science can explain most things in life and present facts to support that argument, but others who believe in fairies or other unproven phenomena simply argue that if you can't prove they don't exist then by default they must exist.

I am also heartened when I read that Elstone is 'lashing out' at the Echo and whoever else he's lashing out at - 'cyber bullies' wasn't it a couple of months back, him and (spew) 'Prenno'.

I was also chuffed when Tyrell's document was revealed online and even more chuffed that he was fucked off sharpish when it was.

And why SO pleased?

Because it suggests pressure might (nb: only saying MIGHT) be starting to be felt and it suggests certain individuals might be feeling the heat.

Look at this statement by Paul Landon (so that's HIS misspelling of 'there')

"Christine, their may be a divide but a divide between a small set of supporters and the vast majority, a majority completely disregarded by the dissatisfied and self-appointed darkside of the support"

Now my question is, if this is true, if it's a small set of supporters versus 'the vast majority' why would he give such a shit?

Why would he be here screaming about Unions and frothing at the mouth about Dave Kelly if the BU were making no inroads and putting no pressure on his beloved board?

Doesn't make sense... does it?

I mean if you're part of a vast majority and don't fear a tiny insignificant group who have different and/or opposing ideas, surely you would just ignore them.

I certainly would.

Amazing what a duff badge and an inability to secure a mortgage on a training facility can do. ..... these are just the latest symptoms. The latest of years' worth.

What they've also done is to continue to sacrifice in the long-term [i.e. when the Board will have changed] for a perceived benefit in the short-term. Which is, of course, entirely consistent with the current Board's approach for over a decade.

'It's like arguing with fundamentalist Christians, or Climate Change sceptics. Pointless (yet worth it for comedy value alone).'

I remember when they called it 'global warming'. That one was quickly brushed under the carpet wasn't it?

Interesting that you are happy to discount Christianity due to a lack of evidence, yet you happily accept other convenient theories that not only lack evidence but indeed contradict every fact we know about a topic.

Heard of the Club of Rome?

Paul #966 I would say that the appearance of a General Meeting forced by a sufficient number of disillusioned shareholders would again negate this fallacy of a "majority".

I think the stink they created with the badge change and the deal with the council will bite them on the arse.

Have you realised that without a contrary voice (Paul Landon) and those of us who take a more balanced view, this thread would have run its course on the day of the article`s publication.

By encouraging the battering of anyone who doesn't toe the party line do you not run the risk of becoming the Pravda of the toffeenet?

We have given the negative, albeit truthful, view of Kenwright.

As you are one who takes a more balanced view, give us the positives about Kenwright.

A bit contradictory is it not?

Richard, as I said, there are many supporters who just want the football, nothing else, but consider that should the team be poor or sell off players, then it directly affects even their support.

Under Moyes we performed inconsistently, more good than bad, but never quite well enough, but it was enough to keep the board and many supporters happy. Now it's all up for grabs again and the discontent is there after two or three poor results.

Everything has an ending and I for one am looking forward to a team run by a good board and a competent management team, no-one can deny there would be a vast improvement in the fan-base support and the ability to focus on the team without worrying about a two-faced board and management.

Kenwright's companies are worth IRO £12m. Jon Woods sold his software company for £100m, but is thought to be worth a hell of a lot more. He is never included on any rich lists and is notoriously secretive about his wealth. We know Earl's estimated wealth is £250m.

Earl & Woods both use off-shore companies for tax purposes, so it is difficult to find much info about Woods's exact net worth.

I think between them they could have afforded to guarantee a small mortgage, which would have been paid by the club anyway!

You give in too easily for one who believes in his view.
I think you know the true picture re Kenwright and his board.

Let's take a look at some of that 'balance' shall we.

"Those of us who occupy the real world know full well that Moyes worked miracles".

"Everton were — and still are — desperate for a new home, and Kirkby offered them that at what the club considered was an affordable price".

"I continue to believe that, at heart, Blue Bill is an all-round good chap with the best interests of our club at heart"

Well if that's the 'balanced view', I am more than happy to be called Britain's most UNBALANCED man.

As for the vast majority that Paul Landon speaks of, it's possible that it might be true. It's equally possible that it might be untrue. All I can see on most ToffeeWeb threads, and certainly on this particular thread, he is in a majority of 1, unless you include Richard Dodd in his camp but I'm not really sure what Richard's logic is, if that ain't too strong a word.

Bill is either an incompetent salesman (24/7 search etc) or he is a liar. The end result of his search means we're still broke. If this is the best he has done, I would truly hate to hear of the worst. Mind you; King's Dock (y'know, our home that was to be) must be high up the list.

Please don't take this as me being a "Cyber Bully" as that isn't the intention. However, where you believe it is the best thing he has ever done, I believe the best thing he could do is sell the club. And while he's at it, take his "Friends", Robert Earl and Philip "I pay no tax" Green, with him.

At least five clubs finished above us, not two... Newcastle finished well below us but will have a bigger turnover, as probably will Villa. Most clubs will probably outspend us yet again — ALL have built more modern stadiums — so I'm still at a loss to know why you think it's good that he hasn't sold. Not to mention the Kings Dock, Destination Kirkby debacles, and not being able to afford a relatively small mortgage to secure training facilities.

Not bullying. ..... just facts, and lots of them.

An argument starts to crumble - "CYBER BULLIES!"

An argument gets cornered and there's nowhere to run - "CYBER BULLIES!"

Three consecutive posts pointing out your argument is pitiful and pointing out why - "CYBER BULLIES!!..um..and they're GANGING UP!"

It is almost always disingenuous, sleight-of-hand, murky-the -water deflection and imo the internet equivalent of waving a white flag.

Here is one of the best examples ever from David 'Yeah go on Bill I'll have another' Prentice.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/david-prentice-cyber-bullies-adding-3009836

Tip, next time you see 'cyber-bullies' used, have a look at the accompanying post - I guarantee whatever argument they're putting forward, it'll be dumb and weaker than gnat's piss.

Hardly a moderate stance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22037966

Surely the question is would a private investor have reduced the rent to a sitting tenant with over 40 years left on their lease.

A lot of the comments in response are top notch. Fancy having the gall to be critical of the administration. Sorry Michael, going a wee bit off message here (maybe!)

That same paper painted a picture of Reds fans running a sort of holy crusade to oust Gillette and Hicks. We get accused of "Vile abuse" from Mr Prentice.

Anyway, back to the topic. Elstone's indignant outburst at the Red Echo must have them trembling in their socks down at the well known Liverpool Printing House in...where is it? Oldham?

The Shite have had a successful takeover, QPR got relegated but would you say their owners are poor? I would have them over our lying clown anyday.

But do be careful what you say about ToffeeWeb: I think you've been taken to task before over mischaracterizing the nature of the beast, so to speak. We don't like that, you know...

I was interested to see if Paul Landon could explain from his 'alternative viewpoint' the mystery of this topic: just what irked Elstone so? And you call that bullying? [I feel a Captain Mainwaring moment coming on...]

Reading between the lines, the only thing I can come up with is that the Echo/Post jurnos didn't use the material he gave them, and instead aired concerns such as those of the opposition on the council. Unfortunately, I think Tom Hughes (#774) hit the nail fair and square. This side issue is being ramped up as a perfect deflection for 26 June and the EGM. Although the "state aid for football clubs" angle (#118) may mean there's a lot more legs in this one yet...

For me, it's not about Kenwright-bashing (as you seem to think, Richard); it relates far more to the divide Christine described so well (#692) — a divide that only the club can fix... but they have shown time and again that their preference is to maintain and deepen that divide.

Although part of me wonders now if this idyllic unity amongst the fanbase can really be achieved? For some reason I can't yet grasp, if you show 1,000 Evertonians the exact same information about something, you will get a myriad of different viewpoints ranging all across the spectrum. At least that's how it seems on here! Perhaps we need more rigid mind control that Richard thinks is in place... you stupid boy. [I couldn't stop myself that time.]

Global warming has not been brushed under the carpet, it is happening. Maybe it is you who misunderstands the term.