Elstone annoyed with 'misleading' local press

, 14 June, 129comments  |  Jump to most recent
Robert Elstone has lashed out at the Liverpool Echo and Daily Post for publishing copy that he says was "factually incorrect and grossly misleading" regarding the circumstances and terms of the new rental agreement struck with Liverpool City Council as part of the property deal where LCC purchased Finch Farm.

"Not for the first time, the Club was dismayed when reading our local papers earlier in the week," Mr Elstone said in a statement on evertonfc.com. "The Echo and Post's write-ups of our new rental arrangements for Finch Farm were badly wrong.

"The clarifications and corrections provided by our media team were ignored by the reporter and the copy published was factually incorrect and grossly misleading.

"The deal had been in the offing for several months. It was not distressed in any way. It was a well-thought through arrangement, supported by professional advice, which helps the Club cut its cost base. The Council was delighted to support the scheme.

"We have made our views clear to the newspaper."

Liverpool Major, Joe Anderson, meanwhile has reiterated that the arrangement is beneficial to both the City and Everton FC, confirming that the new terms of the club's lease are more favourable than was the case under previous landlords, Finch Farm Ltd..

"It's a very good deal for us and for Everton," he said. "Everton retains a long-term lease on the site and the new rental arrangement secures a reduced annual rental cost to the club and an attractive commercial return for the council."

Quotes or other material sourced from EvertonFC.com



Reader Comments (129)

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


Sean Lloyd
2 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:37:37
'Well thought arrangement' - Golddust that!

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

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

Jay Harris
3 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:47:40
Just shows the arrogance of an over promoted jumped up accountant.

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

Pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

Paul Andrews
4 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:52:56
Sue them, Mr Elstone.

Take legal action; get it out in the open.

Paul McAllister
5 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:57:38
This is like Luis Suarez accusing someone else of cheating, diving or biting.

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

The day we are rid of this man the better.

Tony Waring
6 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:10:14
Can somebody – who actually knows the facts – please clarify this situation? Either Elstone is rightly indignant or there is something fishy going on.
Eric Myles
7 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:17:49
Elstone accuses newspaper of printing lies that he didn't issue as an official press release!!!
Paul Andrews
8 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:27:42
This is a great opportunity for the Echo to print a few home truths were Everton FC are concerned.

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

James McCall
10 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:25:05
If what was printed was wrong, why doesn't he say what the structure of the deal with LCC is and include all facts?
Eric Myles
11 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:27:03
Tony (#664) — either Elstone is right and the board had to beg LCC to help them out because our billionaire owners weren't prepared to stump up £12 million to buy back Finch Farm.

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

Nothing fishy at all really.

Gavin Ramejkis
12 Posted 14/06/2013 at 18:01:27
Maybe the RS Echo don't "owe the club favours" anymore... ha ha ha!

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

Paul Gladwell
13 Posted 14/06/2013 at 18:33:20
Isn't it about time the Echo grew some balls now with this shite? They can put this prick in his place but no doubt we will see some apology soon in print.
Paul Joy
14 Posted 14/06/2013 at 19:36:50
As opposed to Everton fans annoyed by misleading Elstone?

Steven Telford
16 Posted 14/06/2013 at 19:53:24
I know it may not be a popular re-ignited suggestion, but looking at the financial pressures, amongst other issues of "relieve competitiveness" for both teams.... I don't think it would be a bad idea to reopen talks on a joint stadium.

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

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

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

John Daley
17 Posted 14/06/2013 at 20:22:08
After the easy ride he and Everton have had from the local press over the last few years, who would've thought 'rictus grin Robbie' would be so quick to bare his teeth?

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

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

Christopher Kelly
18 Posted 14/06/2013 at 20:30:20
We've been "annoyed" at the misleading board for 12 years!! Welcome to the fucking club, you piece of shit liar and truth suppressor, lol!
Ross Edwards
19 Posted 14/06/2013 at 20:32:01
The board annoyed by the Echo lying! The irony is highly amusing.
Gavin Ramejkis
20 Posted 14/06/2013 at 20:32:03
Steven, the joint stadium idea doesn't wash: two completely different business models.

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

Colin Glassar
21 Posted 14/06/2013 at 20:46:55
Elstone, you have about as much credibility as a £15 note.
Ste Traverse
22 Posted 14/06/2013 at 21:01:17
I said on this very site days after Desperation Kirkby was thrown out that this bloke Elstone was even more out of his depth than the guy before him, Wyness, and since then he's only reinforced this view.

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

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

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

Ross Edwards
23 Posted 14/06/2013 at 21:27:51
I think we should elect a CEO, someone from the fanbase, so they are in touch with the views of the fans. Elstone or any of the board are NOT Evertonians; keep acting, Bill, but you're not, mate. They don't know what it TRULY means to be a Blue.

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

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

Patrick Murphy
24 Posted 14/06/2013 at 21:35:14
I can't see how he can complain, I haven't read every word the Echo has printed about the Finch Farm situation, but from what I have read I hadn't seen anything that looked like it was controversial. But Elstone has to realise that, when it comes to taking public money or favours or both, the Echo will obviously report that story in a different manner than they would for ordinary club business.

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

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

Sean Lloyd
25 Posted 14/06/2013 at 21:55:26
More front than New Brighton!
Brian Waring
26 Posted 14/06/2013 at 22:11:49
Elstone: "supported by professional advice" — Ahh, would that be like the professional advice used during DK etc???
Brent Stephens
27 Posted 14/06/2013 at 22:30:02
Colin #704. That £15 note I've got – have I been had?
Eugene Ruane
28 Posted 14/06/2013 at 22:13:27
I just can't get over "factually incorrect and grossly misleading".

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

One hard-faced shifty little turd.

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

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

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

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

Robbie Shields
31 Posted 15/06/2013 at 00:03:29
Amazing isn't it, this transaction was completed weeks ago without any announcement from Everton, no fanfare, no details or anything, why? Embarrassed are we? That LCC have bailed out another of the Board's monumental financial cock-ups and that the Board yet again have refused to invest any of their own money?

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

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

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

Elstone Out!

Phil Sammon
33 Posted 15/06/2013 at 00:28:58
As much as I dislike Elstone, I don't envy his role. He is payed handsomely, I imagine, but he is a human buffer between the fans and the root of the problem.
James Flynn
34 Posted 15/06/2013 at 00:33:14
"We have made our views clear to the newspaper."

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

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

The pressure builds...

David Greenwood
36 Posted 15/06/2013 at 06:50:03
What are you going to say, Bobby, if the Echo were to ask the following questions? Not that it will happen of course...

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

2) Who owns Goodison Park?

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Greenwood
37 Posted 15/06/2013 at 07:31:41
Three more questions I should definitely have on the list above:

8) Is the club for sale?

9) What's the asking price?

10) What are the conditions of sale?

Ben Hayes
38 Posted 15/06/2013 at 07:45:04
Does anyone know any journalists anywhere?

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

David Greenwood
40 Posted 15/06/2013 at 08:16:19
Sorry people, more questions for Bobby. This has really got my goat up!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rex Tait
41 Posted 15/06/2013 at 08:24:04
Phew!

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

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

Tom Hughes
42 Posted 15/06/2013 at 08:31:10
I think Robert was expecting a similar backlash to the badge-prompted revolt that saw his partner in crime have to empty his desk. This is a simple Ross/Tyrrell-esque attempt at deflection no doubt further prompted by the coming general meeting. There is no detail outlining the specific contentious issues in the article.... just vague references to nothing at all.

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

Tom Hughes
43 Posted 15/06/2013 at 08:51:22
David and Rex..... excellent points. Would form a good list of questions for the general meeting.
Sam Hoare
45 Posted 15/06/2013 at 09:32:43
Why does it always feel that there is a real lack of intelligence and honesty in the people running our club?
Paul Andrews
46 Posted 15/06/2013 at 11:26:58
Sam,

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

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

Ged Alexander
48 Posted 15/06/2013 at 12:36:50
The biter bit....
Eugene Ruane
49 Posted 15/06/2013 at 12:11:38
Sam - "Why does it always feel that there is a real lack of intelligence and honesty in the people running our club?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

However once he'd lied to me things changed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Tully
50 Posted 15/06/2013 at 12:55:37
The whole episode is a total embarrassment to the club, and it's support.

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

Gobshites the lot of 'em.

Neil Quinn
51 Posted 15/06/2013 at 13:16:41
Eugene (794) - I think the vast majority of Kenwright backers fall into the second category "he's lied but they forgive him". Because at least he's a blue.

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

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

Ray Roche
52 Posted 15/06/2013 at 13:32:59
Keith Wyness. You know, I'd almost forgotten about our own telly tubby. So I Googled him to see what he's up to and according to his Wiki page he's pretty good at what he does. (Wiki page...says it all).

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

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

Richard Dodd
53 Posted 15/06/2013 at 14:08:29
Neil @796: I thought I read that the Club sold the facility for £8M not £2M. Rental on a property valued at that lower figure would hardly amount to £1M a year, would it?
Gavin Ramejkis
54 Posted 15/06/2013 at 14:17:55
Doddy, Everton sold the land for £2.1m then had it developed to their specification, now who paid those build costs - an estimated £9m contract given to AFL? Unless you do a USA style grand move job you may as well say the build costs were to the benefit of the land owner and not directly to the club as we are mere tenants.

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

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

Brian Waring
56 Posted 15/06/2013 at 15:23:50
Eugene, I'm sure not so long ago, someone tried to defend BK by stating they are just 'little white lies' and go on in the business world every day.
Phil Bellis
57 Posted 15/06/2013 at 15:31:16
Brian
I remember the numpty - "goes on all the time in business..."
Myself and others argued with him that in "our" businesses reputation, integrity and honesty were paramount
He couldn't/wouldn't see this

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

Paul Andrews
58 Posted 15/06/2013 at 15:34:38
As the great BB King sings it.
"Fool me once shame on you.Fool me twice shame on me"
Eric Myles
59 Posted 15/06/2013 at 15:38:04
What £1M a year rent Doddy?

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

Gavin Ramejkis
60 Posted 15/06/2013 at 16:18:33
Brian and Phil, Neil Pearse by any chance? I remember crossing swords on a few threads and him defending BK as if his modus operandi for running Everton should be forgiven. BK is a cancer on the club and his abuse of blue credentials unforgivable, there's nothing he wouldn't do to deflect blame from himself, from inventing investors and misuse of the Trinity Press to character assassinate the guy who without he wouldn't have been able to buy into the club in the first place. The loss of KD so he could remain in control of the club, his decade of lies and con tricks, DK, the list just keeps on and on.
Paul Andrews
61 Posted 15/06/2013 at 16:43:41
Gavin,

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

Patrick Murphy
62 Posted 15/06/2013 at 17:12:27
The problem for BK is his association with the Theatre World, not because he is a 'luvvy' per se, but because that industry is about putting on a show. You don't need to build or maintain a Theatre to make money you only need people to invest or get people to invest in your show and the cast.

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

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

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


Paul Landon
63 Posted 15/06/2013 at 17:24:03
This is a case of damned if you do; damned if you don't.

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

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

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

David Heaton
64 Posted 15/06/2013 at 17:14:18
The whole thing does not make sense, why not buy the whole thing for £12 million from Finch Farm Limited? With 40 years left on the lease, why not take out a mortgage or long term loan, this has to be cheaper then paying rent for the next 40 years.

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

Kevin Tully
65 Posted 15/06/2013 at 17:41:17
I imagine half of al the cock-up's we witness are not down to the Board directly (clearly the buck has to stop at their door)

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

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

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

Look at our main sponsors FFS, Crabbies and Chang!

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

Richard Dodd
66 Posted 15/06/2013 at 18:49:47
Patrick @838:

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

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

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

Ross Edwards
67 Posted 15/06/2013 at 19:32:30
"I'm only the chairman"

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

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

Matt Traynor
68 Posted 15/06/2013 at 19:37:19
I will stand to be corrected here, but two of our Directors have been there from the 1999 takeover right? Although both are in the millionaire bracket, I don't think either are mega rich. I believe at the time of the buyout BK was in the £1-2m bracket, and JW in the £c.5m bracket. Earl came in to replace Gregg, but has no interest in the club and with the collapse of DK, less so.

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

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

Richard Dodd
69 Posted 15/06/2013 at 19:37:50
No longer, Ross, it's been wound up. But I`m seeking a nominator for chair of the "Robbie is Boss" Federation!

Can I rely on your vote?

Ross Edwards
70 Posted 15/06/2013 at 19:44:55
Of course Doddy. May I join you in the Federation?
Gavin Ramejkis
71 Posted 15/06/2013 at 19:50:01
Paul #839 your subservience to BK and his board really does know no end does it? Any views on the potential impact of UEFA FFP rules regarding a local council using public funds to dig a private company out of the hole it dug itself? Will you come on chewing your own hat and apologise for your blinkered nonsense or disappear?

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

Paul Landon
72 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:02:48
Robert did not slaughter anyone Gavin, he merely expressed a frustration and disappointment at the reporting. I can't see anything wrong in that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Andrews
73 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:19:48
Paul Landon,

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

Ross Edwards
74 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:27:52
Paul Landon, You would defend the board at any cost wouldn't you, because they provide you with your executive seat and cocktails etc on matchday don't they?
Kevin Tully
76 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:15:47
Paul # 839

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Landon
77 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:24:33
Paul Andrews

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

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

Peter Foy
78 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:27:14
Paul, to coin an old phrase, be careful what you wish for.

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

Paul Landon
79 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:31:18
Kevin.

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

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

Michael Kenrick
80 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:37:02
Paul, there's one crucial thing you said (#899) which caught my attention:

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

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

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

Paul Landon
81 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:44:06
There is no point, Michael, in supporting the board and the club on a site that seems to have a set of posters that are blinkered and negative to anything the club do. I am not debating what was right or wrong in the reporting.
Eugene Ruane
82 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:29:02
My guess?

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

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

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

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
83 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:58:23
Well, Paul, the topic here is the misreporting of this issue by the local press.

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

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

Ross Edwards
84 Posted 15/06/2013 at 21:01:11
Why are you here then, Paul, if you aren't willing to discuss the topic?
Colin Wainwright
85 Posted 15/06/2013 at 20:58:02
Paul Landon asks at 899, "A question I still ask of the Blue Union: What have you offered up as an idea to help the club? — Answer: nothing. Just constant relentless complaining. Cue the bile from the usual suspects."

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

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

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

That's that sorted then.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

Paul Landon
86 Posted 15/06/2013 at 21:16:30
Michael,

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

Gavin Ramejkis
87 Posted 15/06/2013 at 21:08:28
Paul there is a massive world of difference between a PFI and a publicly funded one, a simple private investors vs local rate payers. The FFP rules would question all forms of financial advantages, the LCC purchase using public funds smacks of one calling to be put under the microscope.

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

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

Michael Kenrick
88 Posted 15/06/2013 at 21:34:12
You're not providing anything, Paul, least of all an 'opposing view'. You simply naysay anything anyone posts on here about the club, and assume everything the club says and does is golden.

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

Gavin Ramejkis
89 Posted 15/06/2013 at 21:35:29
Paul, you want to check out what was said in Parliament about clubs potentially leaving taxpayers responsible for their debts.

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

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

Gavin Ramejkis
90 Posted 15/06/2013 at 21:37:19
And in this European market we live in how about this?

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

Still feeling secure with your support of a questionable situation?

Paul Landon
91 Posted 15/06/2013 at 21:42:22
I am, Gavin, for one reason and one alone: Finch Farm was owned by someone else and that someone – no doubt down to financial issues – had to sell it. LCC bought it, nobody made them buy it and therefore the commerciality of the deal is for them to decide if viable or not. They are not stupid and they would be very aware of the public outcry, especially in a place like Liverpool. They must have checked every conceivable negative based on today's climate, you have to believe that surely. If they have not done the due diligence then more fool them and they will be made accountable.

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

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

Paul Andrews
92 Posted 15/06/2013 at 22:07:50
Paul Landon,

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

Ste Traverse
94 Posted 15/06/2013 at 22:23:57
Well said Paul Andrew #951.

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

Bit of a weirdo if you ask me!

Richard Dodd
96 Posted 15/06/2013 at 22:28:12
What`s worrying me about this debate now is that people seem to be saying that the City Council funding a stadium — maybe a Blue/Red one — would be a sin. This after years of preaching that this would be to the glory of both clubs and a great amenity for the City of Liverpool.

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

Christine Foster
97 Posted 15/06/2013 at 22:19:57
Sadly it is indicative of the plight we are in as supporters that there are those who blindly trust anything and anyone who is running the club. That's an attitude more akin to master-servant relationships than a democratic right to express ones views.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Dodd
98 Posted 15/06/2013 at 22:46:47
You must move in different circles to me, Christine, because I rarely meet anyone who gives a flying fart about Kenwright and the Board. They only ever seem to get mentioned in respect of how much they will give the manager in this or any other 'window'.

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

Paul Landon
99 Posted 15/06/2013 at 22:55:52
Christine, their may be a divide but a divide between a small set of supporters and the vast majority, a majority completely disregarded by the dissatisfied and self-appointed darkside of the support.

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

Paul Andrews
100 Posted 15/06/2013 at 23:04:16
"I rarely meet anyone who gives a flying fart about the board."

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

Michael Kenrick
101 Posted 15/06/2013 at 23:38:26
If it is a 'majority', Paul Landon, that hardly matters a jot. They are the fans who quite freely state they are only interested in the football on the pitch, and who will be the first to admit that they have no interest in (and no knowledge of) what goes on off the field. They are only there for the football.

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

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

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

Eugene Ruane
102 Posted 15/06/2013 at 23:57:12
Richard Dodd (964) - "You must move in different circles to me, Christine, because I rarely meet anyone who gives a flying fart about Kenwright and the Board"

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

They give a shit about the future of Everton FC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finally you say..

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

Do you really?

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

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

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

Specifically what?

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

And it's 'craic' you dolt.

Colin Wainwright
103 Posted 16/06/2013 at 00:09:27
Well said Michael.

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

Patrick Murphy
104 Posted 16/06/2013 at 00:15:23
Isn't this the whole problem in a nutshell, those who question the motives, skills and ambitions of the current board raise concerns usually backed up with facts whilst those who question the motives of the 'alarmists' seem to have no facts that supports their own loyalty to the board.

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

Patrick Murphy
105 Posted 16/06/2013 at 00:23:59
As long as they are not supporters of the Dark Side, they are entitled to their views and I'm sure that they would rather be proved wrong, if on the other hand Paul's version of the reality of the club is proved wrong we are in for some long hard seasons.
Colin Wainwright
106 Posted 16/06/2013 at 00:24:50
It's like arguing with fundamentalist Christians, or Climate Change sceptics. Pointless (yet worth it for comedy value alone).
Eugene Ruane
107 Posted 16/06/2013 at 00:10:59
I have to say I am mightily heartened by the (re) appearance of Paul Landon on TW.

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

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

And why SO pleased?

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

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

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

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

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

Doesn't make sense... does it?

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

I certainly would.

Tom Hughes
108 Posted 16/06/2013 at 00:40:06
Paul Landon...... if you're part of such massive majority, how come you seem to be massively out numbered on here? Where are the thousands coming out in support of everything you say? Perhaps the penny has finally dropped.....?

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

Dennis Stevens
109 Posted 16/06/2013 at 00:51:58
"All Everton have done is have a change of landlord and or Everton have negotiated a better deal with them. In today's market any landlord signing up a risky covenant is more fool them."

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

Phil Sammon
110 Posted 16/06/2013 at 01:09:20
Colin

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

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

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

Heard of the Club of Rome?

Gavin Ramejkis
112 Posted 16/06/2013 at 01:58:06
Doddy #960, are you as a Civil Servant (at least in a former life) and resident of Sefton honestly trying to say you wouldn't object if your council was making cutbacks including staffing only for this to appear the aid through rate payer's money of a privately owned company ran by multi millionaires who cant be arsed paying for it themselves?

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

Paul Andrews
113 Posted 16/06/2013 at 08:16:02
The tide is turning against Kenwright and company. More and more Evertonians are seeing through his lies, and the lies of Elstone.

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

Richard Dodd
116 Posted 16/06/2013 at 12:02:28
Michael @ 983. It seems that the 'Kenwright is the Anti Christ Brigade' are not shouting loudly enough for you and that you feel the need to join in the stoning!

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

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

Paul Andrews
117 Posted 16/06/2013 at 12:28:19
Go on then, Richard.

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

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

Ross Edwards
118 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:04:12
Richard, have you changed your tune again towards Bill? You supported him faithfully, then you started hating him and slating him, now your supporting him again. You've come full circle.
Brian Waring
119 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:10:14
Richard, are you saying Michael isn't allowed to have an opinion?
Richard Dodd
120 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:18:56
I don`t support him, one bit. But I don`t go round slagging everybody off who holds a different view. My point is that by insulting everybody who chooses to do so, lively and interesting debate is discouraged and it just becomes a thread for extremist views. Unhealthy.
Brian Waring
121 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:25:27
Richard, is slagging the BU to death like Paul does debate? Also,noticed you had a little dig at them as well "There may be hundreds barricading the Philarmonic on the 26th but I think most will be there for the craik rather than any conviction that the Club is on the pathway to hell!"
Paul Andrews
122 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:32:00
EXTREMIST views???
Pack it in.
Richard Dodd
123 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:34:10
OK! My voice is silenced. Only those holding views Blue Union would endorse should post.
Brian Waring
124 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:37:37
Richard, it is all and well having a view on the BU and putting those views across, and then there is just slagging them off for the sake of it.
Ross Edwards
125 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:35:14
So Richard, let me get this straight, correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't support Bill but you are defending Landon, who criticises EVERYTHING the BU does, and you have had a little dig at them yourself, the very group that stands up to Bill and his lies, the organisation that gives us a voice.

A bit contradictory is it not?

Christine Foster
126 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:22:17
I had hoped that my post would cause reflection on both sides of the fence but alas those who blindly believe do not see the justification in considering the issues or the outcome.

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

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

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

Brian Waring
127 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:43:32
I think it's called flip-flopping Ross.
Kevin Tully
128 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:46:16
Matt # 876

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

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

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

Paul Andrews
129 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:52:52
Richard,

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

Eugene Ruane
130 Posted 16/06/2013 at 13:53:18
Richard Dodd (034) - "..and those of us who take a more balanced view"

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Dodd
131 Posted 16/06/2013 at 14:05:08
Christine @ 065. I endorse your final para completely but rather like you, I suspect, I shall not be marching with BU anytime soon!
Christine Foster
133 Posted 16/06/2013 at 14:42:57
Richard, alas I fly into Manchester some 12 hours later, despite my best efforts, I could not get a flight in time. Had I could then I most certainly would have enjoyed the opportunity to touch base with the BU, and another fans who are seeking change. This trip is ridiculously short, sadly..
Jim Lloyd
134 Posted 16/06/2013 at 14:44:14
Christine, I would love to see your hopes come true but I think we'll be waiting a long time for that, with this Board and it's CEO in place.

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

Ross Edwards
135 Posted 16/06/2013 at 15:01:19
Richard Dodd and logic? No, I don't think so.
Jim Lloyd
136 Posted 16/06/2013 at 15:02:30
Exactly, Ross
David Pearl
137 Posted 16/06/2013 at 14:25:42
Tasty discussion on here.... Reminding me of the 'cyber bullies' article by Prentice. Anyway... for what it's worth. The best thing that Blue Bill has done is to have not sold Everton. What is the alternative? There have been only 2 successful takeovers out of how many? The football world has long been changed.
Jim Lloyd
138 Posted 16/06/2013 at 15:17:38
I can't quite work that out, David. "The best thing that Blue Bill has done, is not to have sold Everton." Really?

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

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

Tom Hughes
139 Posted 16/06/2013 at 15:29:34
David... success is relative.

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

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

Eugene Ruane
140 Posted 16/06/2013 at 15:40:47
Ahhhh the 'cyber bullies' - maybe the lamest cop-out there is (although 'I'm being shouted down' runs it close).

An argument starts to crumble - "CYBER BULLIES!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eric Myles
141 Posted 16/06/2013 at 15:31:31
Richard, you label those who expose the lies being propagated as 'Kenwright is the Anti-Christ Brigade', yet support those that hold a grudge against the people that expose the lies who proclaim 'The BU/KEOIC are the anti Christ'.

Hardly a moderate stance.

Peter Foy
142 Posted 16/06/2013 at 15:58:45
London-based lawyer Alex Haffner, a senior associate at Dentons, added: "The key issue will be the application of the 'market investor test', which looks at whether a private investor would have acted in the same way. In view of these developments, it is no exaggeration to say that all football clubs that have previously entered into commercial property transactions (with public bodies) are now under the regulatory microscope."

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

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

Jim Lloyd
143 Posted 16/06/2013 at 16:11:35
Just read that post Eugene. Bullies indeed! Fancy kicking off about our little stumble on the "Road to Wembley".

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

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

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

Paul Gladwell
144 Posted 16/06/2013 at 16:24:18
David what do you class as successful takeover? Just because a team does not win the title does not mean their owners are poor.

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

Michael Kenrick
145 Posted 16/06/2013 at 17:09:56
Oh Richard... if there was any truth in these mythical "cyber-bullies" of which you speak, we would not have had the delight of your inane ramblings to entertain us all these years! [Eugene's analysis, as succinct and apposite as ever... phenomenal!]


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

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

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

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

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

Derek Knox
147 Posted 17/06/2013 at 02:20:16
Well! Look on the bright side! At least he knows what it feels like to be mislead!
Colin Wainwright
149 Posted 17/06/2013 at 08:32:19
Phil Sammon. It was a throwaway comment. I'm not going to debate the science behind it here or the fact that the scientific evidence against it is funded by "dubious" benefactors.

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


Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, 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 Talking Points submissions across the site.


About these ads

© ToffeeWeb