Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In  |  Sign Up
NewsRumoursReportsVideoTalking PointsArticles
Text Size:  A  A  A
FAN ARTICLES

The Truth about Lescott, Kirkby, Kenwright and the Club – Part II

By Roger Davis :  09/09/2009 :  Comments (65) :

Having been busy for a few weeks I’ve only just managed to catch up with the debate that followed my previous post. It looked like a good debate was underway, pity it didn’t last longer. Fair enough, some debaters exhibited a healthy scepticism for the accuracy and validity of the information it contained, that’s entirely understandable, but I had a little laugh at those who, no matter what, steadfastly refuse to believe that there’s something rotten in the state of Goodison.

It goes without saying that it would be unethical to name the sources of the information quoted but suffice to say it’s from individuals, accountants and solicitors with a professional attachment to the club, and someone who was in fact a former board member…all I can say to the apologists is this; you won’t find anything in that article that’s inaccurate… it you wish to disprove anything the floor, as they say, is all yours.

I also notice some questioning whether Everton are officially insolvent; check with Equifax; they credit score Everton at 18, they rate Everton as technically insolvent. Ask yourself this… if another business wishes to run a credit check on Everton do they take the word of Equifax or someone claiming financial acumen on a fan website… I’ll leave that one with you.

Events have now moved on; the transfer window has closed, Lescott has departed and Everton have distributed their windfall amongst Wolves, David Moyes’s transfer kitty and the club's coffers.

Are we now better off as a football club? The supporters certainly aren’t; if we had kept Lescott and added the new players, that would have been a start; the squad was beyond threadbare at the end of last season and after the comings and goings it still is…  but now we’ve lost an England international defender; unfortunately we had no alternative — unlike Liverpool’s directors, who put £40 million of their own money into Anfield to aid cashflow difficulties last season, our nominees refuse to invest anything in Everton.

We have little money for transfers and, due to having an income that remains below expenditure, we’re unable to pay the salaries that attract the stars anyway. This will all change of course when we move to Kirkby…or shall we just consign that one to the same box as the "ring-fenced" money and club advisors who pass themselves off as journalists to LCC officials? Watch this space…

Lescott never intended to leave or indeed initiated the move, but during the negotiations over the past year he never once received an assurance that the club wanted him to stay, he was just told that Bill Kenwright wanted £20 million plus and he could go. Once the enormous salary was offered his head was inevitably turned.

Since Lescott’s departure, you’ve been witnessing an antipodal led revolt surrounding the salaries offered to our stars in relation to those on offer at other clubs… some will have sympathy, pointing to last season's fifth place finish and a cup final appearance; others, like myself, will point to this seasons Arsenal game.

If we’re not better off as a football club, are we better off financially? Well, I’m sure most can do the math; salaries, agents fees and down payments; let’s just say the wolf has been kept from the door… for the time being. Don’t forget how foreign player transfer fees are paid, not at the time of transfer but over the contract; lets have none of this we’ve spent all the Lescott money on new players… it’s an insult to intelligence.

There’s something of a whiff of the New Labour of the 1990s emanating from Goodison Park these days; it could be construed as nostalgic if it wasn’t so tragic. I’m certain good old Will Cuff must be turning in his grave. We have the poor man's Tony Blair and the even poorer man's Alistair Campbell spinning away, orchestrating the flow of information, stage managing events to limit the voices of dissent, delivering well honed monologues accompanied by slick presentations all designed to limit the opportunities for dissenting voices to be heard.

Thankfully the day of reckoning is fast approaching… answers to awkward questions will be required; will Tom Cannon be asking them or is a promise of a seat on the board a little too tempting for those with ambition within the club? Best not rock the boat too much…

Reader Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Gary Tan
1   Posted 10/09/2009 at 06:11:06

Report abuse

To say that the Club never wanted Lescott to stay is wide off the mark and if that is the standard of your accuracy, I doubt if anything else you said is worth reading.
Derek Thomas
2   Posted 10/09/2009 at 07:03:13

Report abuse

Like the blind man, who, despite being told it’s an Elephant, quite rightly believes the senses he has and, just like us (well me) is, due to being kept in the dark and thus as it where technically blind, goes with the duck option... If it feels like a duck and smells like a duck then, by God, it must be a duck.

I can’t see all the facts, but I can hear Elstone and all the others QUACKING LIKE FUCK.

Just call me Donald and put me in a cartoon ffs.
David Ellis
3   Posted 10/09/2009 at 07:34:47

Report abuse

Oh gawd not again...

1. Yes, we know we have no money coming into the club from the board. Nor are we ever likely to until Kenwright gives up control. Like you, I wish he would — but there is not much point harping on about it.

2. I don’t know how anyone can say that the squad has not improved. It clearly has. Of course some of the new signings might not work out — and statistics show that likely one of them will not. But we have lost one first team player and bought three; we are stronger. Yes it would be nice to have more — but see point 1 above.

3. Moving to Kirkby will not solve our financial problems. But it is still necessary because we have to face up to the need of re-developing Goodison. The status quo literally is not an option for much longer. We either move or stay in a stadium with much reduced capacity. I don’t like the choices either but we have to choose the options that are actually available. The need to re-develop the ground will make our financial situation worse. This is not BK’s fault. Other clubs have overcome this and so will we, but BK did not create this problem, but it does need to be fixed on his watch.

4. BK says a lot of silly things. But Elstone and Moyes generally do not. Where is all this spin you speak of? I think we are tempted to read into press quotes what we want to believe. All the mid-summer quotes about trying to find the cash to back the manager also referred to us not actually having any money and the banks not being interested. I don’t think this is being spun by EFC (apart from BK — who should really be more careful).

5. I believe the financial situation is dire — so the club needs to spend carefully, generally this is what it is doing. Thank goodness for that.

I am not sure that any of these points is controversial or new. Can we talk about something else?

Nick Entwistle
4   Posted 10/09/2009 at 08:20:48

Report abuse

Doesn’t help Rog when you say this is all fact when in truth it is conjecture and oppinion, backed up only by some fancy form of my-sister’s-boyfriend’s-Aunt’s-dog access to information.

Still, I’m with you in theory. We are screwed. Stoke make us look like paupers.
Howard Don
5   Posted 10/09/2009 at 09:10:06

Report abuse

Sorry Roger, while there is some truth in what you say there’s also a hell of a lot of conjecture, opinion and spin in this. To label it "The Truth" is stretching things way too far. I’d be interested to know how many PL teams Equifax doesn’t show as technically insolvent, not many I’d guess.

Also one major step forward the Club has made in the Moyes years that gets seriously underrated is we now have significant value out on the pitch. Who could you have sold for any kind of significant fee on the day Moyes arrived?

Don’t get me started on Blair and Cambell but it takes a great leap of logic to compare the EFC management with those two shysters
Eric Myles
6   Posted 10/09/2009 at 09:19:36

Report abuse

Dan E

“But we have lost one first team player and bought 3” Don’t forget about the 4 squad players that we’ve lost too, from a squad that was already desperately short on numbers, so much so that for half of last season we fielded a team with no strikers whatsoever.

“The need to re-develop the ground will make our financial situation worse. This is not BK’s fault.” – Just who has been Chairman and prior to that on the board during the years when not 1 penny has been spent on improving or developing the ground? And then to turn round and say we HAVE to move ‘cos it’s not suitable is beyond the pale.
Jason Byrne
7   Posted 10/09/2009 at 09:26:24

Report abuse

’The Truth’ in the mind of Roger Davis. As a previous contributor noted its full of conjecture, heresay and spin. By the way our equifax credit rating might not be superb at 18 but if I remember correctly only two PL clubs came out with a decent rating (Utd and Arsenal) and the RS rating was only 10.
Colin Potter
8   Posted 10/09/2009 at 09:27:32

Report abuse

I’m with you Roger, there is definately something rotten going on at the club. How anybody can not blame Kenwright for anything beggars belief, you must still believe in Santa bloody Claus, David!
Robert Teasdale
9   Posted 10/09/2009 at 09:35:06

Report abuse

According to this link more than of last seasons premiership clubs were insolvent.
http://www.equifax.co.uk/About

us/Press_releases/2009/RECESSION_HITS_PREMIERSHIP_CLUBS.html





We are the second least insolvent clubs that are insolvent (2 out of 11).

Liverpool are solvent at 26 and Fulham are not at 20. So the line must be somewhere in between.

The credit rating is the only fact the writer produces. But he presents it in such a way that we are only club like this (otherwise it doesn’t support the premise of his argument)

The facts as reported in the paper are that Lescott wanted to go. He put in a transfer request that we turned it down, we played him against Arsenal when he clearly did not want to play, etc, etc. These are not the actions of a club who want to sell their player. When it is then clear he wants to leave we get the best price we can and at £22-24M for the second best defender at the club that is a good return on our investment.
Phil Martin
10   Posted 10/09/2009 at 10:30:41

Report abuse

Totally agree Roger,

We spent only what we recieved from Lescott’s departure. Who is Elstone kidding "We spent £30M"? We will spend £30M over the next 4-5 years on wages for the new signings dont pretend thats the total outlay now. Utterly insulting...

Well Apologists the board have provided nothing again to Moyes. They’ve sold every asset we had and are pinning every last morsel of EFC on a tin pot stadium in Kirkby. I can’t bare to watch...

I do wonder though regarding the 2 yank lads we signed. At 21 and playing in the US 4th Division i dont believe they’re gonna make the cut. I just wonder if Moyes was told we wouldnt have money to spend (unless he sold) and as a two finger gesture signed two no hopers from the US. As if to say "You give me buttons and this is the calibre I’ll bring in"...could be totally wrong about them two lads but I’ll be majorly suprised if they make it.
Trevor Williams
11   Posted 10/09/2009 at 11:11:41

Report abuse

The truth about this post is that most of it is your own opinion.

You must have been busy as you suggested as it appears you have been inside Lescott's head for the last few weeks.

What a crock of shit and a pointless post
Sam Morrison
12   Posted 10/09/2009 at 11:12:05

Report abuse

Roger, re your statement: "all I can say to the apologists is this; you won’t find anything in that article that’s inaccurate… it you wish to disprove anything the floor, as they say, is all yours."

Apologists, anti-apologists, whoever... if you claim to have the ’facts’ or the ’truth’ the burden of proof is on you to back it up, not the people who, not unreasonably, ask How Do You Know That?

You’re not the first to say you have something on good authority and you won’t be the last. Maybe everything you say is absolutely correct but you must understand you won’t get everybody simply taking you at your word.
Steve Hogan
13   Posted 10/09/2009 at 11:20:28

Report abuse

Sorry, but the whole article just about falls apart in the seventh paragraph, ’Lescott never intended to leave or inititiated the move’...

Well fuck me, he gave me the clearest indication he wanted away by point blank refusing to play for us anymore.

An absolute crock of shit.
Neil Pearse
14   Posted 10/09/2009 at 11:27:54

Report abuse

Are we better off as a football club on the playing side?

Well, we lost Lescott and got Distin who many think is a better defender (albeit older). We replaced Jacobsen and VdM with Heitinga and Bily (two players who didn’t play with two senior internationals - I know who I’d prefer!). And we lost Castillo and Valente - two other players who didn’t play. Oh, and got Jo for a whole season.

This is not a tough call is it really?
James Thomas
15   Posted 10/09/2009 at 12:23:26

Report abuse

This really is taking the piss. None of the conjecture you spew can be proven and the onus is most certainly not on "apologists" to prove that you’re wrong. You probably can’t prove that I didn’t sleep with Angelina Jolie last night, but that doesn’t mean it happened did it?

The closest thing you have to a fact is some bullshit about Everton making Lescott feel unwelcome and happily sending him off.

What utter nonsense.
Stuart McKeown
16   Posted 10/09/2009 at 12:18:11

Report abuse

"The salaries offered to our stars in relation to those on offer at other clubs" — is this not one of the main fucking reasons why today’s football in general is in such a dire state? Money grabbing players and stupid fucking onwers willing to pay absurd amounts, and in most cases, for players that don’t give two flying hoots about the club — a la Lescott. Have you heard Lescott thank the club for providing him the oppurtunity or thank the fans for their support? I haven’t!

There is a lot of critism about the regime, some of valid, but come on Rog your keen at naming names — Will Cuff, Kenwright, Blair et al give us some names that are willing and able to invest and run the club? And why not name your sources if you’re bold enough to make a reference to them!!

Chris Perry
17   Posted 10/09/2009 at 12:52:50

Report abuse

What a load of shite, maybe you should rename your article to "I am bored so here is a crock of shite to read".

Lescott never wanted to leave!!! What the fuck did he put in a written request for???

Luke Berry
18   Posted 10/09/2009 at 13:05:32

Report abuse

’You won’t find anything in that article that’s inaccurate… it you wish to disprove anything the floor, as they say, is all yours’

Now I am no apologist for for the board or Kenwright but that my good sir smacks of a cop out of the highest order. Hell, you could have at least started some kind of ’find the whistelblower' hunt — at least that would be fun.
Brendan McLaughlin
19   Posted 10/09/2009 at 13:33:26

Report abuse

"Lescott never intended to leave or indeed initiated the move, but during the negotiations over the past year he never once received an assurance that the club wanted him to stay, he was just told that Bill Kenwright wanted £20 million plus and he could go."


Strange isn’t it that Lescott didn’t come out and reveal all of this at his introductory press conference as a City player a few weeks back. Are you sure your "sources" aren’t just taking the piss?
Tony Williams
20   Posted 10/09/2009 at 13:57:05

Report abuse

Eric

"Don’t forget about the 4 squad players that we’ve lost too, from a squad that was already desperately short on numbers, so much so that for half of last season we fielded a team with no strikers whatsoever."

If you are going to include the dead wood from last season, it’s only fair to include the dead wood we have brought in, in our numbers this season so the numbers haven’t gone down as much as you are suggesting.
Peter McHugh
21   Posted 10/09/2009 at 14:02:04

Report abuse

The Truth is simple. Kenwright is skint but likes being Chairman and does not want to sell until the Kirkby move as he realises he will make a load of money then.

We need to sell players before we buy and must make staged payments. We do not buy at the beginning of summer to save on 4 players' wages for 3 months.

Moyes is a ditherer in the market and content as he is the highest paid employee of the club. I didn’t want Lescott to go but actually, I think we are likely to be stronger. Moyes should generate funds by selling players and replacing with better or same standard and cheaper — Wenger has done this for years. Pienaar is perhaps ripe to be sold next for a significant profit...

Tony Williams
22   Posted 10/09/2009 at 14:58:19

Report abuse

Peter, how is Moyes a ditherer? Hasn’t he made it clear who he wants. The delay is the board offering to pay in smarties.

In many articles last season it was confirmed that he put in his list of targets, in an A,B and C system yet somehow he is a ditherer. How can he get the transfers in more quickly? what more can he do than say, "I want him" to Bill? He doesn’t negotiate the deal, he identifies targets and leaves the rest to the board, he will have input with the player trying to sell the club and his vision if they meet him but apart from that please explain what he does that makes you think he is a ditherer?

He is probably too particular in his targets and is too set in his ways for the ones he wants but that is not being a ditherer but being stubborn, a big difference.
Tony Williams
23   Posted 10/09/2009 at 15:31:05

Report abuse

Sorry forgot to add, Roger, why is it always the ones who have the inside info can’t be named. Don’t you think that when "your mate" gave you this info in confidence, it is implied that you then don’t go and plaster all this confidential info on a public forum?

My mate’s sister’s best friend’s cousin bollocks, is just all that, bollocks.

We can take educated guesses at things and if it comes up, we can say, "I told you so!", but all this "insider info" is all my arse.
Peter McHugh
24   Posted 10/09/2009 at 17:15:14

Report abuse

Tony,

TRANSFERS - difficult to argue with regards to transfer market that Moyes is a ditherer, not for reasons you state but because we never know the truth. I could give examples — fact he seems to take players on loan more than any other Premier League manager; not sure on taking up Fernandes after he’d been class for us on his first loan spell...

Loads of other examples but you (with good justification perhaps) could blame the Board — ie, we have no money, can only afford loans and board messes up for funds. We don’t know full facts so can’t really say.

However, Moyes admits he takes ages looking at players — the crap defender from Fiorentina, Krøldrup was it? He said he looked for 18 months; Simon Davies again 18 months...

I say ditherer, others may say he does his homework but he seems to take an age. I think he dithered re: central defender in summer — Senderos, Taylor, Huth — again, you may say differently. We were very close to missing out on players like Cahill, in my view, because Moyes dithered, you may recall he was going to Palace but Jordan won’t pay agents fees.

POSITIONS:– is Jags central defender, right back? Same with Joleon to a lesser extent, but certainly so with McFadden, Davies and more recently Fellaini. It seems odd to me you pay €15m for a player and not sure where his best position is.

CONTRACT:– his own position at the club, openly admitted he deliberated long and hard and spoke to Bobby Robson at length...

TACTICS:– this is the most annoying part, during matches he just doesn’t change things quick enough... substitutes are far too late, everybody in the ground can often see a problem but he just doesn’t change. Rarely does he change even at half time.

Hope that helps explain.

Peter McHugh
25   Posted 10/09/2009 at 17:30:59

Report abuse

Apologies - JAGS - meant to say central midfielder - you may recall he played him there and then even once moved to CB and was great he still at beginning of last season played him (though he was always crap in midfield) in midfield at start of season.
Dennis Stevens
26   Posted 10/09/2009 at 17:41:08

Report abuse

Tony, your "deadwood" comment doesn’t quite stack up. Every season we have some youngsters leaving & some others joining, most don’t make it & if they do it’s unlikely to be in the short term, so these departures & arrivals are largely irrelevant to the first team squad.

As regards that squad, we have lost 5 players & replaced them with only 3, so whilst it’s fair to be confident we will have a better first XI the depth of cover has diminished even further. How one views this is, of course, subjective [nett gain or loss (?)] - but at least we should accept the changes as they are.

Numbers down a bit but quality up a bit may well be a trade off that Moyes is willing to accept &, although I may have concerns, I’m quite prepared to bow to his judgement on the matter.

Karl Masters
27   Posted 10/09/2009 at 18:21:29

Report abuse

Despite many of the posters on here pouring scorn on Roger’s opinions, I still believe our Club is not being run as well as it could or should be off the pitch.

I believe we have a Fantasist as a Chairman whose biggest attribute is spinning lies and bullshit.

Moyes has done a splendid job on the whole, but it is mainly despite our Board and not because of them.

Kirkby stinks and one day my theory is that 2 Spurs fans will pull the rug away from under Kenwright if it goes wrong.

The future is either at Kirkby and all the problems that will cause (probably under new owners in the mould of the Icelandic failure at West Ham) or at Goodison with Moyes forced to sell his best players to buy any more. It all looks pretty unpleasant..... in my opinion.

Steve Ferns
28   Posted 10/09/2009 at 18:09:28

Report abuse

Peter, I disagree with you on all levels. Mainly because you make too many assumptions based on what you have read and believe them to be true.

Transfers - as you said unless you are party to the inside dealings of the club then you will never know. Buying a new player for the club is not like buying a new cd or film. You don’t simply walk into HMV and pick up Slyvian Distin off the shelf. A major mistake on a player can cost the club a lot of money, and when you have no money like we have the reality is that a bad signing may set the team back a few league places.

How do you not know that this summer Moyes did not realise that Lescott was off and did not line up a centre back early to replace him. Only for the board to delay any transfer until they had confirmation the Lescott deal was going through in order to get the finance in place to make the purchase. If that is the case, then is it not plausible that the said player might have been missed out on for a variety of reasons, firstly his club knew how much we were getting and wanted a higher fee. Something like he’s worth at least half as much as Lescott. Maybe, the player saw the £ signs with the Lescott deal and wanted wages that we could not afford. Or maybe the player simply choose not to join us but another team. Any dithering in this scenario as board level.

Now in the case Simon Davies, was it not correct that Davies was a first team player at Spurs and that perhaps they wanted more a figure for him that would essential mean that Moyes would have to forgo another player to get Davies in. Both Davies and Koldrup Moyes may have viewed as not being essential purchases and instead he may have decided to use the money elsewhere and / or keep an eye on them to see if they developed sufficiently to justify spending the sums of money required. He cannot be like Harry Redknapp and just buy the player anyway because it won’t matter if he turns out to be inadequate as he can just sell him on for less and no one will care. We cannot afford those kind of mistakes and Moyes knows this better than anyone having made the Koldrup mistake.

If you had seen the Simon Davies who played for Peterbrough, then I doubt any of us would not have wanted to sign him. Spurs spent what was a small fortune on him.

I cannot completely disagree that Moyes is not a ditherer as like you, I am not in his inner circle. However, I do not believe that such a highly rated manager would be so indecisive in the transfer market.

Positions - it is hard to know what some players best position is. Think back to the Jagielka of Sheff Utd was he not a jack of all trades there? He was hardly a settled centre half. I believe he’s only flourished at centre half since he’s been settled in the Everton side and put that down to Moyes’ exceptional positional sense, particularly in the defensive positions. My favourite example of someone who underlines these difficulties is Gravesen. He played infront of the back four for Hamburg. He got the ball off the back four and would strut around with it. He was rarely challenged and rarely made a challenge. Their idea of a DM is a playmaker. Our idea of a playmaker is a player really behind the front player. Which is why Gravesen really came alive in 04 when he was relieved of deffensive duties and given licence to roam. Also Gareth Barry, the amount of managers who have played him in every position on the left. It took years for him to finally become a centre midfielder, and I wouldn’t be suprised if he’s not playing left back again in the future. Fellaini is the new Gravesen in my opinion. Best when relieved of defensive duties, but is he good enough for us to effectively defend with 10 men?



Tactics - Moyes, like it or not, is someone who believes in sticking his best side out and keeping with it through thick and thin. This comes down to man management. Do not forget about just how big a role the lack of a bench plays in making substitutions. Do you really think that taking off Tony Hibbert and throwing on a 17 year striker is really going to win us the game? Moyes will never be one to frequently make drastic changes but he has been known to change 3 at half time only if i remember correctly to finish the game with 10 men after we got an injury.
Peter Lee
29   Posted 10/09/2009 at 17:48:02

Report abuse

Part of the trouble with sequential posts is that the theme keeps shifting and there’s always something to say about the new theme; however, trying to exert some self-discipline here goes.

We played City 2 / 3 years ago after Liverpool had tried their first attempt at refinancing the loan they had with Royal Bank of Scotland. A mate’s mate (here he goes), a City fan, met us in town and told us the tale of the debacle that was the due diligence exercise on the loan. Great fun.

After that, because we asked, he lead us through the financial aspects of football clubs in the Premier League as business propositions.

He said that if you were an investor and you had access to, say, £500m in loans you would have to be crazy to buy a Premier League football club as things stand. None of them would make more money than the interest on the loan so you’d be out of pocket and increasingly in debt.
However, investors might well buy a business if they think that its value will rise, believing that they can sell out at a profit to more than cover their losses and some. Now the value would only rise if the club became much more profitable.

In terms of the Premier League, he believed that the purchases of MUFC and LFC had been based on that approach. That might seem strange since the debt was saddled on each club and that alone would make them unattractive for resale. The gamble taken by the Americans, and not a risky one since they aren’t holding the debt, is around TV rights.

Most people know that in some other countries the money paid by TV is negotiated with individual clubs. Real Madrid and Barcelona are far and away the biggest snouts in the Spanish trough for example. The Americans have bought in believing that sooner or later the Premier League deal, originally set up by Phillip Carter I think, would break down. Since the two clubs concerned are much the most marketable, particularly overseas, they could expect to benefit hugely and so increased income, increased value and very profitable sales beckon.

It is much more difficult to get behind Abramovich’s motivation. He genuinely seems to want to own a successful football club and he’ll pay the bills. Who knows what the arabs see in Manchester City.

In the longer term it all appears to be unsustainable and I’d rather not see EFC tied to that train of b/millionaire investors when it hits the buffers thanks.

Regarding Bill Kenwright, I suspect few people know what he bought into the club for and what he plans to take out when he goes. I do know that there wasn’t a queue when he did buy it and whether he has managed well or badly we are in a far better place than we were headed when he did.

David Moyes is an outstanding manager but I have to agree that there are times when tactically he is like a rabbit in the headlights. Over the years there haven’t been many managers who could do otherwise during the game but all of those who could had players on the field and on the bench who could effect tactical changes as they were instructed. We have rarely had that luxury but by November we probably will have. Let’s wait and see.

And as for Kirkby, it isn’t “our” club, it never has been and it never will be. It belongs to rich people who pay their money and make their choices. Why on earth should they listen to us?

Alan Kirwin
30   Posted 10/09/2009 at 20:33:54

Report abuse

Self-indulgent speculative nonsense mixed with the bleedin obvious. Zzzz

This for instance...

"Lescott never intended to leave or indeed initiated the move, but during the negotiations over the past year he never once received an assurance that the club wanted him to stay, he was just told that Bill Kenwright wanted £20 million plus and he could go. Once the enormous salary was offered his head was inevitably turned."

Did you bother to actually read what you wrote, sorry, invented?

During what negotiations over the past year? Lescott signed a 5 year deal just over a year ago. Lescott apparently never wanted to go? What? He never once received assurances the club wanted him to stay? So a new & improved 5 year deal wasn’t proof enough? Get a grip man.

Listen old son, Everton’s financial distress is an open secret. It’s what we do next that most of us are pre-occupied with. Perhaps that’s what you call an apologist. Whereas you appear to be simply a fantasist.

Almost every club in the EPL can be regarded as "technically insolvent" at some point. Chelsea are carrying £750m of debt, Man Utd more, Liverpool a little less. None of the above have the income & assets to support their predicament. Chelsea have lost almost £100m a season for 5 years. Where’s the news?

Stop pretending to be something you’re not. We all recognise the difficulties the club is in. Casting vague, unattributed and frankly fantastic nonsense into the ring is boring. You seem to be revelling in some odd form of smugness. Why? for peddling repackaged innuendo dressed up as fact?

My arse.
Neil Steele
31   Posted 10/09/2009 at 20:54:40

Report abuse

There may or may not be some truth in what he says but the part about Lescott is 100% factually untrue so I have to doubt it all. A good friend of mine is a longstanding friend of an agent who works at Lescott's management company and he informed me right at the start of the summer that Lescott wanted out and was determined to have his move.

By the end his attitude was so poor I was told he alienated even his own agent, who classes himself as ethical, and handed in a transfer request AGAINST his advice. That is not a sexy lie to make up and at the time of him telling me in the first place it wasn't even rumoured. With Roger passing the line that Lescott never wanted to leave as ’fact’ you really have to wonder... it’s simply not true.

Richard Jones
32   Posted 10/09/2009 at 21:09:38

Report abuse

Well, Roger, I read the article and as with the first it pretty much fits like a glove, it's almost as if you really were an ex-employee or something it really strikes a chord with me...

Off course the head-in-sand brigade and PR people who come on here will kick up a real stink over what you say but thanks for another intriguing post, I think it's a case of "tune in next week when you’ll here Roger say"!! Keep 'em coming, Roger.

Jay Harris
33   Posted 10/09/2009 at 21:46:15

Report abuse

I think you lost it on the Lescott issue Roger.

He and his family were on a plane with Mark Hughes returning from Dubai in early July which probably explains Everton’s grievance about tapping up.

What would have been interesting would have been if they succeeded with John Terry, would they have pursued Lescott so vigorously, and paid so much over the odds???

Based on what Robert Elstone said yesterday, I think we all have to form our own conclusions and opinions because not much truth (or fact) comes out of any football club.
Brendan McLaughlin
34   Posted 10/09/2009 at 22:00:45

Report abuse

@ Richard Jones.
Exactly Richard tune in next week for another episode of fantasy island!!!!
Richard Jones
35   Posted 10/09/2009 at 22:22:24

Report abuse

@ Brendan, sand, head goodnight Brendan sweet dreams!!
Brendan McLaughlin
36   Posted 10/09/2009 at 22:24:37

Report abuse

OK Richard, are you saying the ex-employee called it right on the Lescott issue. Go on I dare you!
Richard Jones
37   Posted 10/09/2009 at 22:33:27

Report abuse

Brendan do really believe the club wanted to keep him once an offer came over given our past record when offered large sums for our best players? Did you really believe the spin coming from the club? Think very carefully before you answer.
Brendan McLaughlin
38   Posted 10/09/2009 at 22:48:01

Report abuse

Richard it’s not what I believe that’s at issue, it’s what your "ex-employee" is claiming to be true. He claims that Lescott never wanted to leave & only decided to go when the club didn’t give him any assurances that they wanted him to stay. Does this version of events also strike a chord with you?
Richard Jones
39   Posted 10/09/2009 at 23:10:33

Report abuse

What do you think on the other point’s in both articles Brendan?
Marco Buonfiglio
40   Posted 10/09/2009 at 23:10:16

Report abuse

Um ... Roger ... the "antipodal led revolt" ... I’m assuming you mean "Antipodean", and that this is 3am girl-speak for Cahill kicking off about a raise. Forgive me and please correct me if I’m over-interpreting.

As for the Equifax ’bombshell’, at least twelve months ago those notables were announcing that at least 50% of the Prem were "technically insolvent". This is, after all, the Premier League. It’s morally bankrupt, so why should its finances be any different? The only reason our neighbours are still trading is because BoS were terrified of the PR consequences of foreclosing.
Brendan McLaughlin
41   Posted 10/09/2009 at 23:15:51

Report abuse

Seriously Richard, I don’t know. I must admit when people start claiming "sources" it immediately turns me off. When I initially read Roger's original post which he refers to at the start of this piece I thought perhaps, maybe. But this one was just way OTT in my opinion. I mean it’s not even that Roger has a source, he’ s got "individuals, accountants and solicitors with a professional attachment to the club". Maybe I’m just too cynical for my tender years but it just doesn’t ring true to me.
Eric Myles
42   Posted 11/09/2009 at 04:47:41

Report abuse

Tony W
those “Deadwood “ players we lost were 4 players that have represented their countries internationally with one of them being our first choice left back prior to last season, one of them supplying the cross to Gosling to beat the RS last season and the other 2 have signed on for other Premier League sides for this season.

Is the deadwood we have brought in of the same standard? Are they even in our squad of first team players as the 4 they are ‘replacing’ were?

Gareth Humphreys
43   Posted 11/09/2009 at 08:11:03

Report abuse

Roger what a load of shite you spout.
(1) Everton are skint - no shit sherlock. Thanks for enlightening us all.
(2) Lescott wasn’t wanted???! Do me a favour, we turned down 2 huge bids and he then put in a transfer request.
(3) The squad isn’t stronger??? Distin is a like for like replacement and no one in their right mind would have preferred Sylvain to Joleon. But the 4 other squad members who left (Valente, Van Der Meyde, Castillo and Jacobsen) made 13 starts between them last season and have been replaced by the most expensive winger we have ever signed and a dutch international with 50 caps.

Everyone wanted Everton to spend more money and buy more players but, as you have stated, we haven’t got any money. I think instead of speaking to your inside men just save your time and speak to anyone in the ground and they could tell you the above. It is hardly privelidged info you clown.
Richard Jones
44   Posted 11/09/2009 at 08:52:46

Report abuse

So what you're saying Gareth is that Roger is right but you knew this information all along? Interesting... who are your sources in the ground.
Bob Parrington
45   Posted 11/09/2009 at 08:57:51

Report abuse

Roger. What are your trying to achieve here?

Anyhow, re the Lescott mony. Are there any accountants reading the postings? Question: With modern accounting standards how would the transfer fees of foreign players be handled in the books if they are not paid at the time of transfer but over the course of the contract?. ............ contingent liabilities?? or what? If it’s not paid surely it has to go somewhere in to the liabilities on the balance sheet?

Does any body out there have an answer to this? It could be why Elstone can get away with saying all the cash has been spent.
Gareth Humphreys
46   Posted 11/09/2009 at 09:19:00

Report abuse

What I am saying Richard is that the only thing he was right about is that Everton are skint and everyone knows this. His points about Lescott not wanting to leave and the squad not being stronger are laughable.
Richard Jones
47   Posted 11/09/2009 at 09:36:21

Report abuse

Yes but people don’t realize how skint we are and I think the point he was making was that the club were more than happy he was leaving because of the money we would recieve.
David Ellis
48   Posted 11/09/2009 at 11:29:29

Report abuse

Richard Jones, Your last point is self evident (regarding the club being happy Lesoctt was leaving because of the fees they would receive)... But so what?

I am happy with the Lescott deal. I did not really want him to leave, but we got a very good deal so now I am OK with it. I just don’t see the drama in this.
Tony Williams
49   Posted 11/09/2009 at 12:20:11

Report abuse

"Those “Deadwood “ players we lost were 4 players that have represented their countries internationally with one of them being our first choice left back prior to last season, one of them supplying the cross to Gosling to beat the RS last season and the other 2 have signed on for other Premier League sides for this season."

Are you seriously trying to big up Shandy Andy and Valente? So Valente being our first choice left back two seasons ago (played half a game last season) means he wasn’t deadwood?

Jacobsen, played how many games, only due to Hibbert being injured or close to getting sent off? We all know the general view of Hibbert here, so Jacobsen was a defender who couldn’t displace Hibbert, I would consider a 30+ injury prone defender deadwood.

My point was that if you are going to include players who are not even usually considered for the 1st team, apart from an occasional appearance on the bench then you have to include the squaddies coming in.
Paul Leyland
50   Posted 11/09/2009 at 13:17:41

Report abuse

Another provoking post from Roger Davis. Can I just clear up the matter of ’technical insolvency’ and/or ’official insolvency’ —there are no such animals in Insolvency Law. As I posted earlier in Rogers previous article, either of two tests need to be failed before an insolvency is commenced. EFC would have to fail one or the other to be insolvent. That’s not going to happen for the reasons I gave in a previous post in Rogers thread (see shadow directors).

Now let’s deal with Experian and Equifax. These are credit reference agencies who hold data on individuals and companies gleaned from lenders and the Courts. They then pass this on to credit granters for a fee; disturbingly they are also offering credit help services to the public (also for a fee) based upon information they already hold. They are in no way qualified to proffer opinions on companies of the size and complexity of EFC (or any other club for that matter).

They do not posses professional qualifications nor are they licensed to conduct insolvencies. They simply provide info for a fee, although to look at their public profiles you would be forgiven for being led to assume otherwise. For them to state ’insolvent’ (if they did so), is to be treated with the greatest scepticism.

It is extremely difficult to asses solvency in the context of EFC, for the reasons I posted earlier I don’t believe it will happen, although God knows I’ve been wrong before, but not I think in this.

COYB (Solvent or not)

Timmy Mongiat
51   Posted 11/09/2009 at 13:40:04

Report abuse

Absolutely hilarious reading. Always amusing to see someone invent imaginary characters and then use them as some kind of foundation of fact to back up idiotic ramblings.

And with respect to the other comments. I don't see how anyone can argue that we are not in a better position than last season. Since last season we’ve lost Lescott and backup squad members, but we’ve added guaranteed Premier League quality in Distin, International quality of the highest order in Bily and Heitinga and we’ve secured Jo on loan for the season (We know what he can bring). We’ve also seen Rodwell and Gosling emerge as solid squad players now (with Rodwell showing world class potential) whilst we’ve added several big potential youngsters and a couple of lower worth squad players. Lescott’s gone, but then we’ve got far more than he is worth back and in my opionon he was the second best central defender at our club.

With respect to the lack of spending this summer, talk of £30m seems wide of the mark but we would have spent approaching the Lescott fee (minus the Wolves sell on) and we were hardly alone with respect to low spending; apart from Chelski, the other four members of the top six lost at least one of their most influential players during the summer.

Let’s stop overreacting and enjoy the season. All-in-all, we’ve improved yet again, we’ve got three cup competitions to look forward to and I’m sure we can prove our doubters wrong once again this season.

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
52   Posted 11/09/2009 at 14:26:28

Report abuse

Paul Leyland, just a word of thanks for your excellent and knowledgeable contributions. Much appreciated. If you ever feel the need to pen an article... we’d be more than happy!
Paul Leyland
53   Posted 11/09/2009 at 16:24:57

Report abuse

Bob Parrington: any residual payments due would either appear under Creditors falling due within one year, or creditors generally, the reason for the one year limit is to enable acount readers to asses liabilities against WIP in the same period, (incidentally I’m not an accountant, I just read a lot of accounts!)

Michael Kenrick: Thank you sir, I can’t comment upon team matters; enough experts on this site already. What I will try to do is get a liitle bit more info about EFCs position if I can, I don’t know anyone at the club anymore but I don’t think I have too in order to get the information I want. Watch this space......
Simon Dixon
54   Posted 11/09/2009 at 18:44:51

Report abuse

If we have spent Lescott's transfers money... what happened to the Sky money?
Danny Jones
55   Posted 11/09/2009 at 19:31:53

Report abuse

This nonsense post seems an awful lot like a Marsh rant, where it’s all opinion/source and no evidence. Then the author disappears while the flak flies and the forum gets busy. Could this be the work of the same person? Oh and then the site gets more popular... hmm.

I don’t know what goes on inside Goodison (and my family are shareholders) and I have never meet people who really do. Never come across anybody who has said Bill Kenwright said this to us, or Elstone thinks this, it’s always from a "source". Well until names are put to quotes then it’s all bollocks. If it’s said and is a fact then quote it here with the names to back it up, and don’t hide behind my "source" cause nothing will happen to you if it’s the truth.

Lescott wanted us to say he’s wanted? Well Moyes did that enough before the he put in a transfer request while away with Ingerland.

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
56   Posted 11/09/2009 at 19:49:58

Report abuse

Danny, interesting you should ask about the author. We don’t usually vet the authors of submissions like this — just pre-read them for content, format, etc — but I did start checking who Roger Davis was, in terms of previous comments he might have posted... Odd thing is, he has never posted anything other than these two articles! Has never followed up with any comment on the responses he has provoked.

The odd thing is, under the IP address logged when he posted these articles... well there is one other person who posts comments that are logged from the same IP address (which could be shared). That would be Richard Jones... different e.mail address... but had me wondering... is this one and the same person?

Danny Jones
57   Posted 11/09/2009 at 20:08:40

Report abuse

Michael, you where very quick on the uptake of that! Thanks for letting us know, I will now be looking at RJ’s posts from a different angle.

Also Michael, can I ask why, if as you state you "just pre-read them for content" would you let somebody post an article that has no actual proof? If that's the case surely it means you will get people posting bullshit as facts? Opinions are a whole differant ball game than somebody posting statements as facts.

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
58   Posted 11/09/2009 at 21:02:10

Report abuse

Sure thing, Danny.

Just following up on the point about posting articles that have no proof. You’ll have to appreciate that if we required proof for everything posted (1) we’d be here all day... and (2) nothing would get posted!

It’s an open forum; we rely implicitly on the integrity of our contributors, which is why we require real names as part of maintaining both high quailty and mutual respect. But when it comes to distilling facts from opinions.... well, we’re each on our own.

What you generally find, though, is that if someone comes out with something that is rubbish, plenty of people are going to say so in the responses. I used to do it myself as the First Responder (if I know for certain) but now... not so much.

I would however encourage you not to be so sceptical of what people post; few (with the possible exception Roger Davis) are deliberately stating falsehoods... and I believe most opinions are genuine.
Brendan McLaughlin
59   Posted 12/09/2009 at 00:39:59

Report abuse

Michael, I can’t get the dialogue box open on your "negativity" article but not a problem here. Are you limiting the negativity forum to "negative’s" only
Eric Myles
60   Posted 12/09/2009 at 01:06:36

Report abuse

And my point Tony W is that if YOU want to compare the ’squaddies’ coming in with the ’deadwood’ going out then you have to compare not just the numbers.

Your ’squaddies’ are not even in the first team squad and I bet will not even make it into the squad this season (or maybe even next) whereas your deadwood were in the squad and regularly on the bench.

So we’re replacing 4 first team choices / cover with international caps with kids from the USA fourth division. Apples and Oranges mate.

Robert Lam
61   Posted 12/09/2009 at 04:52:15

Report abuse

Dear Editor. Even though this may not be a public site and your team has the legal rights, it is unethical to investigate, search and publicise contributors and their previous comments under different names.
Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
62   Posted 12/09/2009 at 05:00:08

Report abuse

Hmmm... unethical? We have Conditions of Use that require contributors to take personal responsibility for what they submit. And we ask for people to use their real names to promote that responsibility. What is unethical, Robert, is using this website to post comments under different names. We don’t appreciate that.
Richard Jones
63   Posted 12/09/2009 at 09:50:44

Report abuse

I haven’t posted this article. I find it halarious that it’s me being accused of posting this, can you give me the IP address i’d like to know where this possible conclusion has comes from. What I will say is that if I had this information and I had the ability and the time to articultate such an article I would be proud be associated with it.
Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
64   Posted 12/09/2009 at 21:54:01

Report abuse

Sorry Richard. The IP Roger posted from has only nine comments listed under it — all from you. But I see they are from June, July and August... whereas your more recent posts are from a different IP. So I guess he has taken over your old IP. Once again, apologies.
Karl Masters
65   Posted 13/09/2009 at 12:11:50

Report abuse

If the article writer is well informed, perhaps he/she has to put a false trail down to keep their identity from being discovered by bthe Club itself. Just a thought. It may be someone you didn’t expect......whooooo!!! :)

Add Your Comments

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

Log in now

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



© ToffeeWeb

About these ads


Latest News


Betting Promo Codes

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



Recent Articles




Talking Points & General Forum

Pinned Links

OK

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.