Moshiri's Monument to Mediocrity

Much of the article seem's to be quite personal against DBB, you certainly seem to have the 'inside knowledge' about her career to date, much more so than I realised.

I actually responded to one of Paul 'the Esks' recent articles about the missed opportunity in appointing DBB, not that I dislike her, just that it was a MASSIVE chance to appoint an existing CEO from one of the many clubs in Europe or the UK, who already had the commercial/business knowledge to turn around on of the great 'sleeping giants' of english football, with a sizeable budget to match.

I hate to mention the RS, but boy did they make the right appointment when they sourced Peter Moore, check out his CV, he is a real high flyer in the football sense, and has a record of achievement in many related and non related fields, on a global basis.

I would disagree with you slightly about Moshiri. I shudder to think where we would be without his financial imput, probably still waiting for Kenwright to continue his search 24/7 for suitable investment...

Bramley Moore WILL happen, would it happen without Moshiri, I very much doubt it. We would still be stuck in a decrepit, failing Goodison.

If Moshiri is guilty of anything, it is naivity, and probably listening to Blue Bill too much in the early days.

As ever, the buck stops with the manager, if we had continued our upward curve after the Derby, would we still be having this conversation?

I too, am uneasy about the emphasis put on EiTC and it's overbearing relationship with the club. I'm unsure whether or not we have become a football club with a charity attached, or a charity with a Premiership football club tagging on the side?

I guess all this would be mostly irrelevant if this club looked like it was on the verge of success, the manner of the Millwall defeat has cast a dark cloud of every aspect of the club.

Anyway, I enjoyed the article.

Having worked at a senior management level in a company at organisational level, I can clearly see how problems over transfer policy will arise, with a lack of the necessary accountability.

I also was a volunteer for 20 years for a Community based organisation (assets £25 million) of which I was Director and Treasurer. I am very familiar with the antics you describe when a dominant individual sees a career progression route. The unbelievable events you describe conform to the template I have seen operate so many times.

Clearly the Board, Senior Management and the resulting inevitable dysfunctional backroom operation you describe is a accurate description of Everton FC and explains the increasing apparent inadequacies of the Management and support staff off the pitch, which is reflected on the field in poor management, poor play and poor organisation.

Moshiri needs his mates help as soon as possible for a clear out.

I think we'd all agree that it's fair to ask whether the boardroom has sufficient business savvy and footballing knowledge but the tone and selective nature of the criticism of DBB in particular was unfair, in my opinion, particularly so early in her tenure.

After reading that article, is that the only question you want to ask? If you've read all that Gerard wrote, it is obvious why Brands should be the DOF at Everton and another person with the football knowledge that Mr Brands possesses should be on the board.

Well written Gerard and I for one look forward to Part 2 of this story.

I know you'll be watching for the following Kenwright supporters to come on now and tell you what a wonderful man he is and how we should be grateful he has been looking after the interests of our club all these years...

He explains a lot, especially because I usually stop reading long posts, and for everything Gerard says, about the boardroom, I feel the same way about the changing rooms.

Big Duncan, has seen off many managers, but Everton still keep getting bullied on the pitch, and if I lived to be one thousand,I could never understand why this first team coach, always keeps his job?

Jobs for the boys, on and off the pitch it seems, and it all smacks of the slyness of a wily old fox, who scratches the back of those, who look after his own.

Going off thread but how can Evertonians genuinely accept the man who always robbed Peter, to pay Paul, and was even prepared to move us out to Kirkby, once his lies about ring-fenced money, had actually given him more power?

How the hell he is still chairman of the club is beyond me.

As Clive rightly says, Moshiri picking the manager is asking for trouble, and Kenwright couldn't help him.

I think by 2019, we all thought that there would be some serious shoots of positive progress in clear evidence as a result of this new dawn under the Iranian.

Progress hasn't been made but what's even more alarming is we haven't even stood still, we have gone backwards so fast, it's unbelievable.

What the answers are to these problems... who knows, there's no point pissing millions more out on failed signings that haven't got the full commitment to the cause; but, at the same time, the current squad is lacking at least four really top players to move it forward.

I think we face a long hard summer with many questions to be answered.

It grieves me that that liar is still chairman of our club after giving us 25 years of decline. Even if he is just a figurehead now, we need a dynamic chairman to invigorate the club – not that buffoon a Kenwright.

Dave and Tony, my post was actually longer than that, but Lyndon edited it down since much of it was a response to the parts of the article that were likewise eliminated. (If you follow all that.)

Jim #15, I would point out that while Moshiri has "been here" for three years, he has been in overall charge for just one.

Acting as Devil's Advocate here for a moment, I would dare to suggest, Lyndon, that you are giving Barrett-Baxendale a rather easy pass here, on the basis that it is too soon to formulate strong opinions about her, as one might be tempted to do from the story presented in the original piece.

To me, rather than a hatchet job, it reads more as an informed and instructive anecdote on how Denise Barrett-Baxendale was elevated to the position of CEO of a multi-million-pound Premier League football club, mainly on the strength of her stellar work with Everton in the Community. A path to glory that has (I think rightly) raised a few questions among the fanbase.

Insofar as this tale bears some reflection on the structure and ethos of the club and what it stands for — precisely the issue being addressed on other threads right now — I think you may be overstepping the mark in denying access to our readers.

I would vote for reinstatement of what Gerard submitted. Here we have a rare and precious commodity — someone who has actually seen what goes on from the inside — far removed from the sanitized pap we are drip-fed daily by the club via its website and other avenues of communication that are there to "control the narrative".

Maybe Gerard's tale can be simply dismissed as a hatchet job, or the rantings of a disgruntled former employee. But let the readers judge.

And it has been said in many ways before: ‘I might not like what a man has to say but I will defend to the death his right to say it'. We don't have your judicial review on this site – publish the rest of the article and we will be the judge of content – that is the idea of a ‘forum', an agora for ideas.

Barrett-Baxendale contributes nothing to Everton FC and Gerard has an opinion I totally agree with; another example of nepotism at the club, which is killing our club. Oh... is it okay to say that or does it upset your PC vision of the world rammed down our throats every day of the week by the BBC, Sky etc?

I can tell you now I expect you to honour free speech and publish the whole article.

When has being fair-minded been the criteria for this site? It is a site of polemic and strong opinion. A powerful and important article has been neutered.

If it is that is absolutely unbelievable, even for us.

DBB is a very impressive lady who should be afforded the chance to show whether or not she is up to the task. Our work in EitC is brilliant but can't be at the expense of the club – is Brands, Silva focussing on the charity or the team? Is Moshiri starving the manager of cash at the expense of the charity?

Who actually knows how good or bad a coach Duncan Ferguson and the rest are? Would a manager put up with them if they were crap?

Some interesting points here but stop attacking people when you have no knowledge of the facts.

I am afraid I agree with Mike and the other guys.

If it is a legal issue then fair enough but if it's just because you don't think it's fair than it's the thin end of the wedge.

You really should reconsider.

I know that there will be some who will criticise me for what appears to be a lack of interest, but I have always taken the stance of avoiding something I have no control of. In my working life, I was regarded by some as a militant, but the issues were mainly clear-cut.

I trust that the mention of my name in your article was a compliment, and that you understand my position is not one of apathy. As stated earlier, I don't get involved in matters that I have no control over. I do, however, admire your passion in standing up for your beliefs, I think we are similar in that respect,

On a lighter personal note, I have at last passed my fitness test and will be occupying my customary seat for the Wolves game, I have had to make do with Match of the Day viewing, something like 10% of the action which probably made Everton look better than they were. I watched the Millwall game in its entirety and it wasn't pretty.

Nothing personal but what credentials does DBB posses for such a high profile job as the CEO of EFC? It stinks to high heaven. Would any of the Sky 6 clubs appoint DBB as the CEO of any of those clubs? I doubt it very much.

The trouble with Everton FC is we are all too very nice. Every season, we seem to make ludicrous appointments and continue to fiddle while Rome burns. If it's not Walsh & Koeman buying Klaassen and Sandro, it's Allardyce buying Tosun and Walcott or Kenwright talking Moshiri into giving the nice blond lady a bunk up. It never ends... and never will while Bill pulls the strings.

Don't get me started on the phantom new stadium. Biggest heel-dragging exercise in the history of the club. Bramley-Moore Dock puts Brexit to shame.

Unfortunately, what goes on behind the scenes directly affects what happens on the pitch. At the end of the day, everything is interlinked.

I would imagine, as supporters of our Club, if what we witness on the pitch causes us concern and that is somehow linked to the goings on behind the scenes, surely we have a right to know?

We slag players and managers off every day of the year. Allardyce was vilified BEFORE he joined us last season. Silva and most of the team are the latest victims. We have called out Kenwright for years for his actions and less than truths.

If it is not breaking any laws and someone has information about behind-the-scenes mischiefs that affect what we pay to see on the park, especially if that someone has been here for a while, then I think that's fair game.

And to be honest – like every thread – if it is of no interest, then don't comment.

Glad you're back for the Wolves game, you've missed nothing!!

Mike (#17) I read your post before it was reduced. I've met Gerard, only once, but on that occasion – and on all of his post's about our CEO – he has been consistent in his opinions of how the CEO rose to her eventual position. As Michael Kenrick said, let us judge for ourselves.

The common denominator in the ongoing lack of ANYTHING let alone SUCCESS seems to emanate from the "Honorary" Chairman.

I always thought Club President was an Honorary appointment but, for someone who has cashed his chips in, Kenwright seems to be prolonging the failure at all levels with very little outlay – except a round of drinks if he remembers his wallet.

Clive said he's only there to coach the forwards? So he's the first team coach, just for forwards, when it's a fuckin defensive coach we need!

I would prefer to try and get Moshir to engage with T/W, especially because he doesn't need an open letter to anyone now he's got full control of our club.

Does Clive know for sure that he only coaches strikers? I'd expect that to be where he specialises but I just don't get why Koeman, Allardyce and Silva would accept him as first team coach if he was no good at the job because it is their careers and reputations at stake.

Nothing has ever been said in the media about how good or bad he may be but it just irks me when people are slagged off just for being there; I prefer to know the facts before jumping on the bandwagon.

All that said, this business is all about opinions and it fascinates me to read what some people are thinking... it scares me to death at times!!

As for DBB, I understand that she has promoted the club well through the community, and this alone deserves respect and praise.

I believe that all those involved with Everton at a higher level also want to see happen what the fans want to see happen: entertainment on the pitch and if possible, trophies and European qualification. I hope that we can all pull together and make our dreams come true.

DBB seems to have the club and community's best interests at heart. We could just as easily have appointed someone who didn't give a damn.

It's apparent that we would rather promote from within – you could see that as a way of maintaining a set of management that have some interest in EFC – or a way of maintaining control, or a bit of both.

I never said that the thread was of no interest to me; what I said was "I know there will be some who will criticise me, for what appears to be a lack of interest, but I have always taken the stance of avoiding something I have no control of."

I too will be glad to be back in my Park End seat, and no matter what's served up, it's preferable to listening to a radio commentary.

In particular, he was telling me about DBB and how her appointment of CEO came about, and I'm guessing that this maybe the piece that Lyndon has edited out. Obviously, I cannot put down on here what Ged told me, that's for Lyndon and Ged to sort out between them, suffice to say it's quite an eye-opener as to how appointments are made within the club.

Believe me, Ged knows an awful lot about what happens within the club. Ged had a close working relationship with my brother who was also involved with certain aspects of the goings on within the club, so what has been said, either in the OP, or in the past, comes from a person who knows the full truth.

As Gerard and Dave Abrahams say, putting Brands on the board may be a very good thing indeed given the football vacuum he's now invading but we now need a different, talented DoF, not Brands. Brands cannot reliably critique himself can he, but he may be well able to critique whoever gets the DoF role? It's what proper top clubs do but we, among the twenty wealthiest clubs on the planet apparently (!) are still trying to spend the least possible by asking one guy to do two very important jobs.

I suppose it probably costs less in wages but it seems akin to demanding that Jordan not only keeps clean sheets but also must regularly make his presence felt in the opponents box.

Amateurish, as ever under the teary-one.

The buck stops with Fahrad Moshiri. There appears to me to be two separate problems here – both of which, if he is pulling the strings, he is responsible for:-

1. The day-to-day commercial performance of EFC as a business.
2. The performance of the football team.

Because of his track record in Alister Usmanov's business, I have no doubt he can and will sort issue Number 1 out. However, that will take a bit of time; time he won't have if the team is relegated.

He has proven already, however, that he doesn't have the expertise to sort out issue Number 2. He needs somebody else to do that for him. I think he has realised this and hence the appointment of Marcel Brands to the board.

There is a huge amount of money riding on Everton maintaining its Premier League status. It is not just his investment in shares, it's the stadium and all the other opportunities along the waterfront that will flow on from its construction. Moshiri cannot and will not put this at risk.

Moshiri took the big punt on Marco Silva. If Silva can't turn the footballing situation around, starting tonight, I don't think he will sit on his hands.

I know none of the personalities involved but, unless legal reasoning dictates censorship, let us judge on merit, please, Lyndon, or this site is in danger of being a mouthpiece for those that, on face value, are mis-managing what we all love dearly.

I have written on other threads, we're in the gravest danger ever of following Aston Villa – this article does little to assuage my fears.

As for the ability or otherwise of the so-called coach Duncan Ferguson, as I recall, he walked away from football then realised he could get a cushy number by cosying up to Bill Kenwright and came cap in hand to Finch Farm on some voluntary basis – next thing, he is coaching the first team or some element of it.

I would like to have a statistical breakdown of results under his tenure – I suspect they would reassure my view that he is stealing a living good-style, fiddling whilst Goodison burns and we are all heartbroken.

It was an eye-opening tale on a very left-field appointment for me. But it was also a piece that is open to legal challenge and could bring the end of this site, in extreme, but possible circumstances. The right call was made there.

In my opinion, Lyndon had to censor the article to keep us all right; or else a few us would be attending court with Lyndon.

Somebody explain to me how we have or ever will recover from that? We basically told Man Utd we won't ever try to leap them.

A ruthless ambitious businessman would have told Lukaku he either stays or goes abroad but not to a rival. It stinks.

We must have spent £20 million on managers since Moshiri arrived.

I will be honest and say I am cautious about negatives against a woman in general but I appreciate somebody willing to point out his concerns for what he sees as the good of the club.

As long as he/she doesn't lie, I don't see the problem, regardless of gender.

Ok, George I could not agree more with what you have written I could not have put it across better myself. Top man. Top post.

I've said on here in the past that a team's performance on the pitch over a number of seasons is a reflection of the club's hierarchy above.

At this point in time it's chaos. The sooner Moshiri buys out Kenwright the better he's a dinosaur that's hanging around like a fart in a spacesuit.

We need a new era. I also believe Brands has been promoted to the board because he's talking football stuff these amateur clowns have no clue about and lovely Denise is smart enough to know she needs him to make her look good.

The comments on the Director of Football being on the board were valid though. So I wonder why they were pulled?

On the Duncan Ferguson thing, there are some lovely theories but he has the badges required to coach. Like all other coaches.

Stephen Gerrard once said Jamie Carragher would make a better manager because he studies the game more. I don't think Duncan taking a year out is any substance whatsoever and he's never been the number one coach anyway.

Was Zouma thanking him for being a poor coach when he scored the other week?

I think at this point we understand the team is bloated (43 players) and the wage bill needs to be reduced. It will probably take Brands a couple more years to fix.

At this point I hope we find a path on the pitch and stick to it. For example the latest flavour the Borussia Dortmund model.

Its okay to give some younger players a run. Lets be honest everybody needs a run of games. Lets have players like Lookman, Vlasic, Kenny etc. game time as its not a bad thing to have younger, hungrier players vying for spots. Yes I know Vlasic is on loan ( along with 16 other players) it was an example how youth can help. Lukaku was young as well just Richarlison. Age is just a number.

I just really hope when its time its Brands who hires the new coach. For now Silva can you at least try to motivate the team?!

This is because Everton’s due diligence procedure on her appointment to head up EitC makes Failing Grayling’s checks into a ferry company with no ships before awarding it a £14m government contract look positively thorough.

Before DBB's appointment, my opinion of EiTC was one of pride. I thought all of the outreach endeavors were wonderful. I couldn't have told you, at the time, who was in charge of that, but I thought well done by the Club.

Now, surely EiTC is a business venture on it's own mertis? People to hire, events to coordinate, volunteers to organize, quality control of events, invoices, contracts, logistics, etc. Just about every facet of what it would take to run a good business.

If the powers-that-be thought DBB did a stellar job with her position, and they saw a track record of excellence, and from the outside looking in the track record was darned good, why would they not promote that person in charge to a higher position in the organization?

I wouldn't say an organization has to be overly driven to perform "due diligence" in a promotion appointment if they're happy with the individual in question and their performance?

If you're running a company and the VP of Sales shows excellent skills, business acumen, knowledge of the business workings inside the organization but outside his delegated responsibilities, and you like them? Is it necessary to interview 4-5 other candidates?

I'd say no.

Especially if you're looking to put people in place, promoting from within, and build a "culture".

Now if Bill was solely in charge of DBB's appointment, and we know his business skills could be construed as lacking with his track record, that's one thing.

It's all a very convoluted mess this negativity to my eyes, and not having a single clue as to the inner workings of the Club it's difficult to frankly figure this all out. Especially when you see people post who's opinions you take on board.

But on the surface, to my eyes, we had a capable woman of high intelligence, with an excellent track record, who clearly was well liked and thought of by the decision makers, and they promoted her. What's wrong with that? Open-ended questions are dangerous, but honestly what's the harm or evil with that?

The dynamic of not having a footballing "person" on the board is valid. But for me, the hiring of Denise Barrett-Baxendale doesn't seem nefarious in the least?

I'd say let her do her job. It's been months, and I can't see where she's to blame for our current situation. She's running a business, not choosing who plays, what formation we set up in, etc.

I'd also say I don't see it necessary that the CEO is overly "football knowledgable". That's not her role in this business venture.

I stand to be corrected, but on the surface, I really not sure why she's getting vilified?

I'm not asking these rhetorical questions to stir a shit-pot, or pick a fight. I'm asking because I can't for the life of me, understand the negativity regarding the appointment of Barrett-Baxendale to her current position. If she falters, remove her. But to date, I'm not sure if she's done anything egregious?

Someone please explain. I'm not looking to get skewered here. I might just get ripped to shreds. But I can't, for the life of me, understand why this appointment is met with such derision.

Should we simply not hire anyone from a charity background to oversee the business side of the Club? There's a hell of a lot of CEOs of major companies that worked for very large charity organizations at one time or another. Their title at those charity organizations was most probably CEO. I don't see the transition as problematic, nor do I see the fact the EiTC as a smaller outreach entity is problematic if you have confidence in the individual that they can "make the step up."

Clearly, with the worms briefly out of the can, there is now a suspicion and allegation that there was something to hide or that, as has been incorrectly asserted above, there was a desire on my part to toe some party line or assist in "controlling the narrative."

Firstly, to address one aspect of my decision to withdraw a large portion of the article, there was an allegation that might have been problematic from a legal perspective and that remains redacted. The rest of Gerard's account has been restored as was. As I have been urged both here and offline, readers can now read for themselves and decide how fair or not the piece is.

Far from being a "self-important ‘Praetor'" who merely runs a football forum, as Brian Patrick (19) rather condescendingly put it, I am an owner and an editorial steward of what I think most would regard as an influential supporters' website (based on the fact that ToffeeWeb has been running for 25 years now and we built have a wide readership in that time) and with that comes responsibility in terms of what gets elevated as prominent article content.

As I suggest above, I was uncomfortable with the tenor of what became the central tenet of Gerard's article and, to rebut Brian again, it didn't have anything to do with his "opinions" (it was an account not a comment piece) and everything to do with what I perceived to be an imbalanced critique of the Everton hierarchy.

At the outset the intent appears to be an evaluation of the boardroom as a whole but ends up focusing primarily – and with more than a hint of personal animus – on Denise Barrett-Baxendale and her efforts to rise to the level of being the best qualified internal candidate to succeed Robert Elstone (himself an internal hire) while asserting that as a collective we Blues had all been so blinded by the success of EitC that we couldn't see the wood for the trees. There may be an external impression that Everton have been more successful as a club than we actually have been based on the success of the charity but how many Evertonians were telling themselves that everything was sound because EitC was winning a few awards?

The scepticism of Denise's suitability to the role may all be warranted based on Gerard's personal experiences, I don't know and I appreciate the general point he was trying to make about the internal machinations of the club.

But he has clearly made up his mind that DBB has been promoted above her abilities and is therefore doomed to fail. (It has been my reading of the situation that she was installed to be a more-than-capable operations person, with Sasha Ryazantsev steering the commercial side, Keith Harris the stadium, and Marcel Brands the footballing side.)

I suppose we'll see but If you're looking for the root cause of what you view as Everton's current ills, at best (if you feel DBB isn't up to it) you could argue her promotion to CEO was a symptom but she is not the malaise itself.

If we're going to fully assess the perceived failings of the club (most of which are concerned with what's going wrong on the pitch rather than what is happening off it where, relative to our history over the past few decades – the persistently limited commercial growth notwithstanding – there's a hint at some progress), I'm uncomfortable with throwing so many daggers at a CEO who hasn't even been in the post for a year and hasn't had a chance at all to prove herself.

What specifically do you take issue with in her role as CEO?

We have in effect replaced an unsuccessful male CEO with a successful female CEO. I agree that the due diligence was dreadful because Everton is an amateurish job, but I am for one she is in charge rather than Elstone.

Now I'm not saying DBB is of that ilk but let's be clear, what does a career in teaching alone, together with some success as the lead in EiTC, bring to the club as a football business?

Add that to the Teary-One describing her as "Our Little Miss Dynamite" (sic) when he so extravagantly started to promote her in 2014 and I start to believe, I'm sorry to say, that she's no more than Eliza Doolittle, selected by a bumptious wanna-be non-entity if you're interested (check Pygmalion/My Fair Lady) intent on glorifying himself by using her, whilst at the same time preserving his totally spent football ideology throughout the club and especially the leeches he's selected for permanent occupation of FF.

It's been almost 30 years of inertia folks, with only one major "character" being the link throughout. To me the chance of our resurrection depends, to start with, on the demise of one single person (and let me make it clear, for the avoidance of doubt as they say in legal circles, "demise" means the full removal from the club, not life itself!)

I completely agree with your disgust regarding the heads of Charity grabbing obscene amounts of money. We have more than a few over here, I can assure you. One cancer charity, who I will NOT name publicly, had something like only $.27 of every donated dollar actually go to cancer research! That's certifiably criminal! And the CEO was on the payroll for something like $650,000 per year!

But I just don't see, nor have I ever seen it reported, that's the case with EiTC.

I completely understand the suspicion of Bill Kenwright and his motives. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I get it. After, "the money's ring-fenced", some questionable oversees loans, etc., there's at least enough material to have a discussion.

But again, I'd ask, what exactly Barrett-Baxendale has done wrong in her short stint as CEO?

Honestly Don, I don't see a single thing!

This smacks of a very frustrated fan base with what they see on the field, extending their anger towards an individual who doesn't deserve the hate.

Here's why this entire thing is so confounding to me. And I'll be as brief as possible.

Gerard writes a piece questioning DBB's appointment. Later in threads, Rob Halligan states he's had a few brews with his man Ged, and talks about the manner of the appointment of DBB not being ideal.

Now I like Rob a lot. By all accounts he's an extremely good person. He loves Everton of that there's no question.

When someone you respect (albeit on TW, but still there's certainly posters you respect, admire, and some you avoid) vouches for the person penning a piece that, on the surface, appears more a witch-hunt at worst, or minimally a very frustrated, passionate fan looking to vent? Part of you says, "hang on a second. If Person A vouches for Person B, and I like Person A quite a bit, surely I can trust the transitive property? Person B wouldn't just spout garbage!"

Well. . . then you get a mystery. A conundrum. Is there more to the story? I trust Person A's take on things, and he trusts Person B, so. . .

That's why I ask - What specifically has Barrett-Baxendale done in her role as CEO to warrant such a negative opinion?

I can't see a single thing! Not one. I've not seen any article suggesting she's ever been involved with anything unsavory. She's preformed wonderfully heading up EiTC. She's not done anything I can see to warrant objection as CEO thusfar.

But! Gerard probably is a good fella if Rob's any judge (and I've not doubt Rob's a good guy), and he doesn't seemingly think the DBB appointment is a good thing.

Head scratcher for me.

I want more information Don! ;0)

But I don't think ToffeeWeb can publish everything he can say, and I'd advise him about putting it anywhere in writing. I'm sure from what he says DBB wouldn't just brush it off either.

So be careful, Gerard. You're certainly a good blue with his heart in the right place.

I'll leave this alone. Many mysteries go unsolved. Sometimes solved mysteries leave a bitter taste as well.

Cheers.

Having weighed that up, I reckon Lyndon’s decision to withhold whatever he did is best for him and those of us who enjoy ToffeeWeb (even if it is miserable being an Evertonian at the moment.).

As I said above my view is Moshiri has two problems. One football and one let’s call it “corporate”.

The corporate issue if it is exists will take time and several moves to resolve. But here is a clue on where to start. When a business is bought or taken over its former owner and senior executives, unless they are exceptional, rarely remain in the business longer than 12 months.

The football issue in my view is more pressing and looks increasingly to me that it can be solved in one move.

Big test ahead for our majority shareholder.

If "Radiant Grin Of The Year" amounts to anything she's gold standard though.

I have to say, knowing no facts, I believe Lyndon's decision to edit the submission is a solid one. And I might add may have been done without only himself / TW in mind.

Good call. I'm not a fan of censorship in the main. Here's a prime example where editorial removals or omissions are often a good call.

At least it would appear so on the surface, not knowing what was originally submitted. But Gerard's position and an EiTC community outreach program would have meant Gerard being knowledgable about a thing or two.

Now I'll truly leave this alone! Promise.

Last night I got home to a phone call from a TW poster telling me I’ve been censored again. Personally I would have much preferred the article to have been rejected rather than censored without my knowledge.

It’s your train set, Lyndon, so you make the rules. However, if TW is to remain a fair reflection of different opinions your action here was not helpful. Frankly I can’t be bothered, after taking time to write it and double check my facts, to read your version of my article. Nor will I therefore read the thread it has provoked as some posts may be addressing issues whose nuances will have changed if sections have been cut.

I wish all who read and contribute to TW well, but it no longer has any attraction for me.

YOU ONLY HAVE TO LOOK AT KENWRIGHT TRYING TO MOVE US TO KIRKBY, “FUCKING KIRKBY” TO REALISE THIS.

I understand why Lyndon, removed parts of the article, but I can’t understand why he never told Gerard, before this was posted though, because when people only have, “half a story” the only thing they are not getting told is “THE TRUTH”

However thinking about it she may have been the safe pair of hands that both Kenwright and Moshiri would accept? Moshiri takes over further power later this year I understand (July?) so Kenwright may well find his seat less secure - intentionally so, as I am sure he has said he wants to retire. CEO may be a position that will be reviewed in time, others may come on to the board.

That said EitC is a fine attempt to get/keep the local community onside at a time when it is harder and harder to give people a reason to support the Blues. That and £100 season tickets for the kids. It is very good at listening to those in need and to ground the multimillionaire young men we employ. I am involved with a very small charity that asked every club in the Premier League for help a couple of months back and guess who was the only one to respond and actually do what they asked?

Then to criticise the board when it acknowledges a shortcoming by appointing a director with a world renowned knowledge of football? Considering that the previous incumbent 'knowledge base' was a rugby man first and last (as it turned out) I count that as an improvement. He now has the power to appoint his own DoF or equivalent if needed - certainly agree that if we needed a DoF that was fire-able before we need one now too. The role needs clarification.

Where is the heavy-weight business brain to lead all this? It is unfair to run down Moshiri's talents but I still regard him as a front man for you-know-who. We shall see.

It is also unfair to criticise DBB for being a driven, ambitious character. Those are exactly the people we need to drive change through, it is all too easy to sit on the sidelines and snipe away.

I think that was a guy named Richard Knight.

I can't say that I am surprised as it has always been the way that the more ruthless alpha types climb the ladder whilst not caring for what they have left behind.

She very probably is out of her depth at the club but so to were the previous couple of incumbents.

Moshiri made a lot of money very quickly on the back of Usmanov and has surprised me at how he has turned himself into the Iranian Kenwright. His Jim White comments are cringe worthy. The fab 4 etc etc.

Results on the pitch mask over all of this type of stuff and Moyes did a great job at protecting Kenwright over the years. Unfortunately the football is dreadful and every inch of the club is criticised.

Over the last couple of days nearly everyone at the club has been slaughtered.

If we were in the top 6 and still in the fa cup would this article be on here.

Where are the Lyons, Reid, Radcliffe's, Horne's, Watson's,Carsleys, Cahill's or Ferguson's in this team?

Football knowledge indeed.

Gerard's post both does and at the same time, doesn't surprise me.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Then come May and the same bare bones 'facts', in this post feminist, me too world, are the feel good, making it in the male dominated dinosaur world of football, not quite rags to riches, story du jour.

But it didn't work out like that and the same bare bones 'facts' 'could' be spun to say; how can a local girl, with little or no football and football / premier related knowledge and experience end up as CEO, how did that happen...no wonder we're crap.

But

What with the footballing side of matters mentioned, the permanently employed coaches, Koeman, Walsh, no Lukaku replacement, Rooney's return and subsequent leaving, the Barkley Schneiderlin thing, Allardyce ffs.

IMO, Gerard is within his rights to bring this to our attention and link one with the other as symptomatic of the underperforming nature of the last 30 yr

How it is interpreted may depend on your glass half full or glass half empty quotient.

Lyndon has confirmed that the decision for censorship was based on legal conutations. Though the piece was well written and extremely informative the fact that it was written in the first person rather than the third person, meant that it came across as personal, with possible legal conutations, which had they been substantiated would caused problems for you, ToffeeWeb and a few inadvertent posters.

My Oxford English and iPad skills may not be up to scratch, as the ToffeeWeb Editorial team can confirm, but I do know when committing my thoughts in word(writing) to use the Third person, especially where possible legal conutations are possible,

The ToffeeWeb Editorial team have not published and altered some of my posts, where I have headed of on a rant or written things poorly, They have undoubtly done this on other posted, It the right of ToffeeWeb Editorial team to do this and it is absolutely essential they act on anything that has legal conutations. Once any article is submitted it is their right to do this without consulation. . Its the only way they can work, give the large amount of posts and the diversity of opinion. Of course your article is important to you, but all the articles are important to the people that write them, as are the posts.

I think by not arguing you case against the posts to your article you are missing a opportunity to clarify your opinions. Those who write articles and post on a ToffeeWeb have been agreed with, but also challenged.
That is what makes it such a good forum.

I thank you for your article which has given me a incite into the inside story at Everton, which contributes to a Club I want to know more about and through my contribution with the contribution of other ToffeeWebs will make a difference and influence the necessary changes in the Everton FC.

I am afraid you influence will be limited and your resentment and frustration will grow and the only one will suffer is yourself , if you can’t work within acceptable perimeters and won’t engage as a result,

When I was an aspiring Director and aiming to be a Board member of a successful business one day, I watched and listened to lots of clever and driven individuals. I also read a lot of books and one comes to mind just now as ringing very true. It is called 'The Fish Rots from the Head', authored by Bob Garratt. A good read and, as I have found from personal experience, insightful and completely accurate. If your leadership is bad, it permeates every part of your organisation, and your business, no matter what field it is in, will go rotten.

TW readers with long memories may already know where I am going with this.

Our 'Fish Head' is William Kenwright. Nothing, and I mean NOTHING, will change for the better at Everton Football Club whilst he occupies any position of influence. I wrote an open letter to Mr Kenwright in February 2011 imploring him to go for the sake of the club. I think I posted it on TW, but can't remember (have watched so much shite footy in the intervening years that the brain has frazzled). Of course, no reply was received and the huge underachievement and massive disappointments have continued. And will continue, and may get worse.

As a footnote, I seem to recall that when they who must not be named across the park were going through the Hicks/Gillette agonies (oh how we used to enjoy their discomfort - and wow, how they have turned it around), the hard core supporters mobilised and made their voices heard as one. An example True Blues should follow ? The People's club .??

You probably chose the wrong woman in putting Karen Brady on a pedestal as a shining example of a 'non footballing' person rising to the top of her profession.

A little research on your behalf will reveal the extent of her background in the same dodgy lending corporation's based in the BVI that Uncle Bill utilised not so long ago in the Pre-Moshiri era.

Whilst in charge at West Ham she was also a 'director' at one of the off-shore funds lending at exorbitant rates to her own football club!!!

All this is in the public domain so no need for Lyndon to censor me

Relying on my 26 years experience in Charity Sector, I tend think Gerard's understanding of charity law is not great when referring to Fiveways Trust and reason it was set up or could access types of funding.

With length of charity service, I too get irritated by the all image obscessed climbers but I have to swallow when some of these driven folk are brilliant managers. I hate to say it but that is how it is in private industry, government, education, public services, charity sector etc. This is the age of image without needing substance. What is annoying is those without a good image but with great skill still need to dress up and smooze to even get in through a door. Both men and women. Glad I don't have to play that game much longer.

But on the specific gender thing. Well think the character assassination wasn't obviously misogynistic, though DBB was the one most clearly in the firing line for whatever reason. Same accusations and slights could be made of a bloke.

Still let's see what happens when we turn on Michelle Brands!

.

Can I add my own voice to others asking you to reconsider your declared intention to stop posting on TW, all the more so on the grounds that you justify your decision?

Now if you are true to your word Gerard, you won't read this or other posts in this thread, but I'll write and post my opinion anyway.

I'm just reading your opening post and this thread this morning, so I missed whatever was 'censored' in your original post.

As others have already noted, a number of sensible, wise and reasonable posters who have met you in person and heard from you first hand your tales of the inner workings at Everton FC verify your credibility.

From me, you get no argument that under nearly 3 decades of close association with the club, Bill Kenwright's stewardship has been one largely of decay and stagnation (at best).

I also find it astonishing that he has somehow managed to sell the bulk of his holdings to Farhad Moshiri, yet still retain a position of power and influence within the club.

Nor has Moshiri himself acted or spent wisely, on either manager or player recruitment, and some of his announcements on footballing aspects at the club (and the media platform he chose to make such utterances) border on the cretinous.

I sympathise with you that some label you as 'misogynous' for putting DBB under the microscope as you do. I had the same lazy label stuck on me when she was appointed CEO in May last year when I made no reference to her gender, but wondered aloud was she really qualified for the position?

What was clear to me in 72 hours in May was a changing of the guard was long in planning and ruthlessly and efficiently executed. Allardyce and Walsh and their support team went. Brands was appointed. A whole new board of directors were promoted and/or appointed to specific roles, to which, one would hope, they are truly answerable for. Marco Silva followed a few days later.

With this raft of appointments, I was less concerned about DBB's appointment as CEO than you were, Gerard, because 'absolute power' did not rest in her hands alone. Different roles were parcelled off to different people: Ryazantsev became the chief financial and commercial officer, Keith Harris deputy chairman with a special remit of overseeing the stadium development project and of course Brands as DoF.

That said, all these appointments have come at a real financial cost as the recently released account for last year reveal (without going into detail of who gets what): there has been a significant increase in salaries/remuneration paid to directors.

And whatever you can say about Bill Kenwright - and there is plenty! - there is no evidence to contradict his oft-repeated claim that he drew any money from the club, be it expenses or a salary, or the like. That he has seriously profited from selling part of his holding to Moshiri is indisputable, but that is not the same thing.

Now I consider myself someone with an open and inquisitive mind. I don't take as gospel something I read or hear simply because it conforms to some beliefs I hold. I like to confirm for myself, where possible, some claims which may be coloured by an exaggerated leaning to that view.

I am also blessed (or cursed!) with a decent memory, and I recall from previous posts references you made to an official Everton club email you previously had being suspended. I presume this is the email you refer to (but don't specify) in your 'TW Resignation Post' @ 73.

If I'm correct, I also recall you worked in mainstream education as a headteacher and was once a member of the club’s education committee and as such, evidently worked alongside DBB.

Another poster references a meeting of DBB with Neville Southall in which she asked for a 'minder' to be present, because she understood our ex-goalie could be a 'bit difficult'. I am pretty sure the source of that story on TW was yourself, Gerard.

There may well be LOTS of legitimacy in what you write Gerard, with regard to the nepotism and sycophancy you consider deep-rooted in the club that can, and only will be, exorcised when all such opportunists are flame-torched out of the club.

However, I still have some nagging disquiet - reinforced by your 'TW Resignation Post' - that your thoughts and writings are heavily swayed by an extreme dislike of a particular person who has seemingly 'done you wrong' in some way.

You have previously been told by various posters, including myself, that it is perfectly normal practice to delete the email account and any access a former staff member may have to sensitive company information. Yet in your email @ 73 you interpret this (again...) as "a vindictive form of censorship based undoubtedly on my temerity in speaking truth to power at the club."

You evidently take exception to Lyndon's 'censorship' as you see it, but apparently lack the capacity to consider things from his point of view: the possible consequences of what you wrote for the editors and the continuance of this website.

Steve Ferns, a lawyer, in this very thread advises that Lyndon was wise to 'censor' your post as he did. And Steve is someone who has heard your story first-hand.

As far as I can follow, your original submission was posted in its entirety, Lyndon then stepped in to remove (I presume) some inflammatory passages that could have left the editors and the site vulnerable to litigation, then - on appeal by many - Lyndon re-inserted some missing passages from version 2 and also sign-posted where he had taken the editor's scissors to in your piece.

That seems entirely fair to me and not, as you write @ 73, tantamount to you being "censored without [your] knowledge", or Lyndon radically altering your post so it reflects his version of your article, rather than your own.

Sorry Gerard, but that sort of reaction sows a seed of doubt in my mind of tetchiness, a resentment that you are not given total liberty to say what you want, and to hell with the consequences for the hosts on the platform you post your words.

To immediately ramp it up and declare your 'resignation' from TW on this point again suggests to me a reactionary who resents that his version of events is not accepted, unchallenged, without question.

Gerard, you are evidently a learned, educated, eloquent and passionate man, concerned for the well-being of Everton FC.

I can only presume you are a man of mature years also.

Now I would LOVE to sit down and hear from you first-hand what you know about the inner workings of Everton FC, but that is not likely. The next best thing is to continue to hear from you on TW.

Maybe it was all the ales you supped with Rob last night that put you in a grissly mood this morning, but I implore you again Gerard, apply all the attributes you have - and your maturity - and step back from your declared intention to 'resign' from TW.

I for one would most certainly like to continue to hear from you.

I too hope Gerard reconsiders his stance. Like all of us, including Lyndon, he devoutly wants what's best for our club but by heck the people who run it would try the patience of a saint.

Yes, I misunderstood. It was a hell of a lot to read and take in.

Having done the brief search for Gerard and his link to the Club, that's what started really gaining my attention. In that time, a more full version of Gerard's "lightly" edited post appeared.

When you work the "overnight" shift in the USA, things change on a dime sometimes. ;0)

And I'm not embarrassed to say it was difficult for me to follow!

Intriguing stuff. The initial appointment to EiTC - I've decided to not have an opinion about it until, and if ever, I meet Gerard in person. Which hopefully I'll do with a gaggle of TW people, so it'll be up to Gerard to speak on the matter, if that day ever comes.

Cheers. Thanks for the clarification. Appreciate any and all "assists".

For instance my posts look like a personal attack on Duncan Ferguson, during this thread, but I can’t get my head around that every time we get a new manager, then Duncan keeps his job, because I know football is not run this way.

I know Ferguson loves Everton, but surely that’s not enough, and if anyone thinks Koeman, then Allardyce, and then Silva, all came into the job, saying I want Duncan Ferguson to stay, I’d love to hear this from the man at the very top of Everton FC?

You say,
I understand why Lyndon, removed parts of the article, but I can’t understand why he never told Gerard, before this was posted though, because when people only have, “half a story” the only thing they are not getting told is “THE TRUTH”

I'd argue it's not Lyndon's responsibility to inform posters when he's edited a submission. It's his right to do so, in a responsible manner, which he clearly did here, as Editor and Owner of TW. It's incumbent upon the poster to check his submission for edits, and if feeling aggrieved, take it up with Lyndon. Lyndon has no duty, in my opinion, to inform those submitting any piece, of edits. It's part and parcel of the position and job.

To that end, before an outcry begins in the name of free speech - and I am a massive proponent and backer of unfettered free speech in the main - when a submission may place the site or an individual in peril of legal recourse, an edit simply must occur.

And as I alluded to before, Lyndon should be praised for the fact that he might have, just might have, been looking out for Gerard's safety and well-being inasmuch as his own or that of TW's.

A lawyer suggested to Gerard to be wary of what he writes regarding this subject. It seems to me Lyndon had already considered that. For himself and possibly (probably) Gerard as well.

Lyndon acted responsibly, and dare I say he might have just been looking out for a poster, and not simply covering his own back.

That's my take on this. Your mileage may vary.

Secondly, well done to the editorial team for allowing it to be aired! Although the entire article has not been allowed, I can understand (although no expert) the possible legal implications for that decision.

Therefore, I will bow down to Fernsy's opinion on that topic (though never to his opinion on Portuguese coaches).

But, possibly the biggest shock to me was Micky K's advocacy for free speech!

After saying that however, the biggest gobsmacking I will receive today, is if this post is aired.

In the hope that it is well done to all!

To clarify once more for those who haven't had the time or inclination to read the whole thread, the dozen or so paragraphs that were removed post-publication of Ged's article were reinstated late last night.

One particular unsubstantiated allegation he made was not put back.

To be clear, unless they are put in an offensive manner (or form part of a particularly drawn-out or unproductive slanging match between contributors), no one's opinions are censored on this website; in this case, it was one person's account of a specific chain of events at the club that was removed.

Having not had the chance to review the article before it was published, the decision I took after the fact was an editorial one, not one of censorship per se. That is to say that had Ged's account appeared as a comment or a Talking Points item (for example) there would have been less of an issue than there was with it appearing as the central tenet of a headline opinion piece at the top of the website.

Again, Ged has been a valued contributor to ToffeeWeb and I hope that he can at least understand my rationale even if he might not agree with it.

I think one poster has an issue and crusade and is unable to give real detail on here...though tried.

Well quite right.

Libel laws, however bad, exist.

Take it forward Ged or it just becomes a rant with no evidence and to ask us who had no connection with those times in South Liverpool is misusing the site.

Lyndon is a fair minded kind of guy and you are clearly nobody's fool. You presented the guys who give us this platform with somewhat of a dilemma. You know that. They were not even in total agreement with each other.

Step back, look at it from their perspective. this really was a damned if you do/damned if you don't situation. Its all very well the rest of us shouting publish and be damned" we have nowhere near as much to lose.

I put off reading this article until I had a spare hour because I knew it would be a bit of a blockbuster. . .and it was. Even without the part which has caused so much angst.

I'm not going to join the ranks of those asking you to reconsider and come back. You're a big boy and you will make your own decisions, but I will say this; You clearly have an insight and an understanding of the inner machinations of this circus we all obsess about and this was one fucking hell of an interesting piece.

Thank You

I don’t really know, or understand how to do my own threads, but if I did, I would be disappointed if things were taken out, for whatever reason.

We live and learn, (or at least we’re supposed to) but without trying to sound like a scratched record, why can’t ToffeeWeb, try and get Moshiri, to engage?

We’ve all been impressed and made proud by EitC over the last few years, but I did raise an eyebrow at this appointment, purely down to a lack of football experience.

I guess that time will tell

Lyndon I think you have disrespected Gerard massively hence his reaction. Never mind legal issues. I believe, and I don't care if you don't like me saying this or if you want to ban me- whatever - you have personal reasons for what you did. Like coming across hierarchy of the club in the future? Including DBB herself?

Shame on you.

I am also personally respectful of Lyndon. He and I have have had personal e-mail exchanges on what I've occasionally blurted out on here and I've quickly recognised my OTT'ness as a result.

To me Lyndon and Michael, despite being quite different characters, beyond the all important facet of bleeding blue like Gerard and many of us, deserve huge respect, as do Gerard, Jay Wood - BRZ, Darren Hind, the Abrahams and many others when commenting on our club.

This site is great, informative, and (usually!) amusing. We need everyone to partake though. Gerard, please think again, I'll miss your insight.

Saying what maybe some are uncomfortable in hearing does us all good now and again. Conformity is complacent. We, Evertonians, have sweet fuck all to be complacent about, do we?

It's abundantly clear that he has issues with a number of characters pivotal to Everton's lack of ambition and consequently success.

Yes, he cites DBB's rise & rise as his "case in point", however, he makes it blatantly obvious that "The Gushing One" is the real culprit in this debacle.

DBB's appointment was, to Me, a damp squib when we should have been signalling our intent with a salvo of rockets. We didn't. We did what Cornershop Billy does second best.

Prior to her appointment amid the boardroom hokey cokey, I'd been genuinely excited at the possibility that Nicola Cortese would be returning to the Premier League as our CEO. A man with a proven record, with football and banking credentials.

DBB gets appointed, Kenwright retained and My response was "Oh well, another missed opportunity to improve the Boardroom Squad", so nothing new.

Then latterly Marcel Brands gets appointed to the board. Hmmm, why ?

You see, for Me, the Board is the very beating heart of the club. The one arena where every single action taken by any aspect of the club must be measured against "Nil Satis Nisi Optimum".

Enough of this "well that'll just have to do".

The Clubs least successful Chairman ever: William "Arkwright" Kenwright.

That anybody at the club accepts mediocrity is just nonsense and the same with any fan. The exceptional supporters who "accept" mediocrity do nothing of a sort, they support the club and that is the way to resolve what is incorrectly seen as mediocrity. As a club at mid-level in the top league in the world in a position that would be expected from our revenue and salaries, mediocrity is a total fiction.

Shame on you."

Dan, you can believe what you like but I'm always open and honest with my reasoning, because it's my natural inclination and out of respect for the readers and contributors to this website.

I've provided the rationale behind my actions above and won't bore anyone further by repeating them. Suffice to say, if "coming across hierarchy of the club including DBB herself" were my concern (and assuming they would be unable and unwilling to separate the views of a third-party contributor and the editorial decisions on an open forum), I don't think restoring Ged's piece to its original state as I did would serve me very well in that regard, would it?

But the most (only?) consistent excellence I have found in following Everton FC in recent years has been the eloquent journalism of Lyndon Lloyd combined with his stewardship of this site.

He has had to make difficult judgment calls on this article and thread. I think we need to back him.

I said I thought Lyndon, should have told Gerard, about the editing, but if he didn’t want to upset anyone at the top of the clubs hierarchy, it would have been a lot easier for Lyndon, to have not put this on our screens.

Wow, what a thread. I have done my usual skimming during lunch and it is clear this needs more attention. I have avoided this so far as it came on the heels of so many OP's about Silva etc after the Cup exit.

You do have to wonder about the board when we look at our recent managerial appointments. For me, Martinez was a bad move, Koeman even worse, Sam Allardyce – a real "Nooooo! What the Fuck??!?!"

Get to Silva and a shoulder shrug.

This article is agenda-driven but the sentiment I can agree with. Moshiri owns and runs the club, Kenwright has his tentacles through every aspect.

This lady isn't the problem; at worst, she is a symptom of it. We aren't the only club to have non-specialists on the board.

Football specifically isn't exactly full of "great leaders" in the boardroom. You hear a lot about David Dein and Daniel Levy but, despite financial soundness, their tenures didn't do much for the silverware cabinets.

Them apart you have the Glazers bleeding Man Utd dry, Berlusconi, Bernard Tapie (jailed), Jesus Gill (jailed), clowns like the West Ham owners, the former QPR motor racing billionaires, the faux "wealthy" Middle Eastern owner of Portsmouth, the "unfit" Leeds owner, the well meaning but inept Randy Lerner, Mike Ashley, the Pozzo's, etc etc etc.

So yeah DBB, Kenwright, Moshiri aren't exactly the greatest... but the bar is set pretty low.

But we don't need to use the term 'mediocre', we need only the facts that we're still midtable, are unhappy about it, and that Moshiri has been trying to change it by investing a lot of money.

Given those facts, there is at least a 'plausible sense' that there is incompetence or selfish interests at the levels below Moshiri. This 'plausible sense' stems from knowing that it is not unusual for 'cultural problems' in organisations to be due to not having the 'right people' in positions of power. In fact, in my own limited experience, all cultural problems in any organisation have been rooted in this. It's the problem of those in power not having the right competence or goals to achieve success for the organisation as opposed to success for themselves. We see such incompetence and vested interests all the time in politics and business. Perhaps EFC is a particular case.

But the above is just my perception, without any specific evidence (beyond chaos on the pitch) that it's a reality at Everton. What strikes me as different about Gerard's argument is that he appears to have specific evidence of it.

Regarding 'legal issues', I'm no lawyer, but I would have thought that there are no legal issues if what Gerard is writing is supported by evidence, as it appears to be.

Without that evidence, the article could be viewed as just a 'rant'. However, with that evidence, it becomes far more important than that, possibly striking at the heart of Everton's problems in the Moshiri era.

The article by Gerard confirms what I have been thinking for a while now... Are we a football club or a fucking charity organisation????

We have, way back in the day, argued over the emotional investment of supporters (my view) as opposed to your view that this is a business that others run and invest in and that we CHOSE to support.

I also know that you are a careful poster who selects each word. So, your "BIll's tentacles" – yes I know there is a fucking gem of a Carry On joke there – is chosen because you know exactly how utterly malign his influence has been.

Martin, put up an article. Easy to comment on what others say. Stick your neck out.

Mike K raised concerns over Lyndon' s" censorship", many respond. Lyndon responds. The OP walks off. Jay Wood lays in, and all the heavy hitters have their say. The best fan site in the world, and this mighty thread shows why.

Lyndon, your management of this thread has been like your articles, pretty good stuff. Mike K, what have you to say?

At that point, Kenwright should have gone with grace and with some credibility. By hanging around like a bad smell, he has become the problem, not the solution. His mode of running the club as an effective one-man band ceased to be the correct way the moment Moshiri came on board. He should have insisted on a clear out of all of the permanent club features that had been associated with the club's decline and survival mode period; otherwise, for sure, it will continue.

For sure, we have more emotional investment than most business customers and we can be influential (as customers generally are). I only state the legal position of supporters of Premier League clubs who are PLCs. The days when we were members of sporting clubs are gone and for the worse.

My comment on the OP? (and please note that this is just a personal opinion...) For me, it's a hatchet job which I'd consider libellous, a character assassination. PLCs can and do promote from within as they see fit. The selection criteria, rightly or wrongly, is absolutely up to them.

What needs to be proven is not some kind of imaginary mediocrity or even nepotism but incompetence. Only when that is proven would I care. The club has far bigger structural problems than the Chief Executive Officer.

This sporting club membership thing is a puzzler to me. The only time we have come close, to my mind, is the current membership scheme whereby you pay something to be a member of Everton Football Club and get some purchasing privileges in exchange.

Looking back in time, you were part of the club by either buying a season-ticket or becoming a shareholder (or both). I don't recall any mechanism for the sporting club membership you describe.

If, by PLC, you mean Public Limited Company, Everton FC is not – and never has been – publicly traded.

Everton FC Co Ltd is a private Limited Company. It came into existence back in the dim recesses of time (the 19th Century – 14 June 1892, according to Companies House); it may have existed as a 'sporting club' rather than a business for just a few years before that, but I don't recall anything about there being a membership scheme back then.

Is that the time you are hankering after?

I don't personally hanker after any past times other than those when Everton were successful. My point is only that there are arrangements where fans are in some way members of a club with the rights that this incurs rather than customers of the product albeit with a heavy emotional attachment.

The "rights" that we have as customers and fans are only those which the club gives us (privileges?) not those that we demand.

As it happens, we do have massive influence in that the paying customers can put intolerable pressure on the club by how they behave and react at the ground having paid to watch. I also believe that people like Moshiri react to fan pressure.

So you say "there are arrangements where fans are in some way members of a club with the rights that this incurs" ???

And I say, I have no idea what you are talking about — there is no such thing at Everton. Never has been, and (I would imagine there) never will be.

The closest you might get would be the Fans Forum. For a select few. Tightly controlled by the club.

I was referring to arrangements at Sports or Football "Clubs" and at, for example, German clubs where fan ownership and participation is established in the club constitutions. I was only comparing this to the situation at Premier League clubs where, other than shareholders, fans are customers with no rights – only the privileges granted by the clubs, such as the Fans Forum that you mention.

We're lucky in that our Number One fan also has massive influence at the Club.

I reckon there are at least 15,000 fans ahead of him in the queue to be Number One fan who have absolutely no influence at the club.

I could, perhaps, at a stretch, see how it might get a person's back up momentarily, but for them to still be meandering about like fucking Quasimodo over such matters many years later, wanting to ring the bells and warn the masses once again says more about those who have taken unabated umbrage than it does those who quickly trampled their way past and didn't even have the decency to turn back and ask "Why do you have all that steam coming out your ears... Sack O'Spud's Spine?"

To be honest, I think I like Barrett-Baxendale much more now than I did before I started reading. Ambitious, savvy, ruthless, driven, publicity-hound, prepared to climb over those of a more puss-king persuasion to get ahead? Fucking knock yourself out and, please, drag some of those seemingly satisfied to coast along in a perpetual comfort zone along for the ride with you.

If this was intended as a smear piece, it's one more Mr Muscle or Windowlene than mucky arse-to-mitt projectile.

John, I agree with your summary.

For some stupid reason, I really thought you were talking about Everton Football Club, and not some Germans or other unspecified "Sporting clubs". Not sure how I got that idea...

Perhaps it was this bit I originally responded to:

For sure, we have more emotional investment than most business customers and we can be influential (as customers generally are). I only state the legal position of supporters of Premier League clubs who are PLCs. The days when we were members of sporting clubs are gone and for the worse.

But of course, you weren't talking about Everton, were you? How could I be so stupid?

Nice to see you back by the way.

Sorry, I meant as supporters in general who, when the original "Clubs" formed, financed the clubs by membership fees. When I say that I saw it as worse now, that's because I thought membership clubs are a democratic way for fans to be involved.

What are we now? Nothings, I'm afraid, who have no ownership but who deserve far better. This is especially those who travel to away games which is like being a customer and having to go long distances to pick up the goods yourself.

We have a stronger emotional and "ownership" relationship with the Clubs than any other stakeholders and yet we are as far removed from the people who run and play the game as it's possible to be.

As I say at the time, as the owner, he was the only solution we had for how the club would move forward. I would defend him against the stuff that was patently incorrect and perhaps because, in a forum such as this, he can't provide any defence himself.

I was never under any illusion that he was fit to run a successful club with the resources available to do so as a given. He was at the time running a club that I believe was technically insolvent and in danger of going under.

My belief is that it was outrageous of him to stay on when it was essential for the club that he went. He is the problem now and I'd find it difficult to say anything positive about him.

Then 'they' changed that rule.

I still wonder how accurate your characterization of "sporting club membership" really is within the specific history of Everton FC? If it ever existed (which I doubt), it could only have been for a few years between 1878 and 1892. The only reliable reference I know of for that period is the book by Thomas Keates, in celebration of Everton's first 50 years. It's a very long time since I skimmed that work, but I don't recall any such description even coming close.

After that time, it was share ownership, which may have been more equitable as one man, one vote (Nod to Derek @143 – good point!) although the maximum involvement would be topped at 5,000 – being the total number of shares then and far, far less than the potential number of supporters presumably craving the participation you describe.

More to the point, for the modern-day fan, what you talk of can only be ancient history. You are looking for something more equitable for the devoted fan who sacrifices massive time and money to follow their club. An admirable aspiration I just don't think it's possible in this day and age.

In truth, it was never possible once football became a professional sport and football clubs became functioning corporate businesses, back in the 19th Century. Despite romantic dreams suggesting the contrary, this transition happened very very early in Everton's long history. I venture that your craving is nothing more than a pipedream and has no relevance to today's football — which is what it is — no matter how much you may not like it and may want it to be something different.

I have neglected one possibility and that is the fans football trust model of modern club ownership. Something that will quite clearly never happen at Everton. I'd ask the question of fans of clubs involved in this model (of which I know next to nothing): "And how's that working for you?"