Prof Tom Cannon and Ian Macdonald made passionate pleas for unity to the gathering, which received unanimous support and much applause.

Throughout the 3+ hours the meeting lasted, there was hardly any talk about Everton but much painstaking and very passionate debate about the minutiae of procedure, and much banding about of the rules of corporate governance.

The basis of the arguments were put forward in broad brush terms but were aimed personally at the Executive Committee Chairman, Steve Allinson.  The nub of the matter was that the Executive Committee decided last January, or there about, that Steve Allinson's share dealing did not represent a conflict of interest.  This was a position that John Sinnott, the then Chairman, disagreed with and so he resigned.  Now you'd think that, if the proper procedure had been followed and the decision — however much you may agree or disagree with it — had been made by the Executive Committee, then that should be the end of it, should it not?  And therein seems to be the problem; some present still disagreed strongly with the committee decision and keep attempting to change it through making new articles of association and even more rules (that may indeed be generally thought of as being "good") but all were aimed personally at Steve Allinson.

So the new constitution was duly voted in, but with the corporate governance amendments.  However, the notion that the full membership should have a postal vote was thrown out in favour of the meeting on the night voting in changes, under the rules of the old constitution.  (I may not be up on the etiquette of these meetings or the detail of procedure, but I got the impression that some of those attending did not want to dilute the power that they had by attending such meetings; the arguments for "excellent debate" were mentioned but I felt that there was an element of panic creeping in if it was going to be allowed for the whole membership to vote by post...)

Throughout the whole night, there were a couple of old ladies directly behind me whispering about everyone that stood up and spoke: "He got his share off Allinson;"  "They all got their shares off Allinson." and I was beginning to feel a sense of despair that, despite the calls for unity, there were still deep divisions.  These same old ladies (I do not know who they were) kept up the bile the entire night and commented on every vote for a new executive officer "There's another one's son"  "It is all sons of the mothers getting elected."

This most of all epitomised the evening for me: bitch till your blue in the face but do noting constructive.  People were nominated, seconded and elected and there was still a position left at the end that could not even be filled by a volunteer from the floor (the old ladies behind did not fancy it. obviously!).

So, following all the corporate governance stuff aimed personally at Steve, the proposition — under the existing association rules — for the block vote of the return of the existing Executive Committee members who were not standing down was taken and passed. 

Incredulously, there were a group of people who still wanted to vote Steve Allinson off as Chairman, as it was pretty obvious that there was a candidate waiting to stand against him.  So, having clarified once again that the committee members that did not wish to stand down were proposed to be re-elected on block to the positions that they currently occupied (even reading out what those positions were), the vote was again taken and passed.

Still, some members were not satisfied with this demonstration of a democratic vote and accused the committee of not following the rules.  This accusation came from John Sinnott, the past chairman, and I would have imagined that such an accusation from one who had held the highest office should warrant some sort of formal investigation by the Association and the findings officially published with either a formal apology coming from the accuser or recommendations for how the association business should be run.

When it appeared that there was not going to be a specific vote for a new Chairman, the chief protagonists picked up their ball (folders) and left the meeting early, leaving their friends to continue to voice their disappointment right up until the meeting closed.

I did pick up on a theme (helped by the little old ladies hissing "hear hear") when someone mentioned that Steve Allinson could potentially do the same to the association that Peter Johnson did to the Club: namely, provide shares to his friends for the purposes of controlling the Executive Committee and the Association — for whatever purposes that they can only imagine.  I therefore believe that the animosity and divisions evident within the Association are borne out of a fear of Steve Allinson himself. 

It is easier to hate what you do not comprehend or understand and hence the moves to have a candidate oppose him. Not being a renowned and learned academic, I can understand the difference between "no profit" and "no profit motive" as basically being down to a question of "intent" on the part of the individual, and a man stands or falls by his own actions.  If I could paraphrase Edmund Burke for a minute "all it takes for apathy and stagnation to triumph is for good men to do nothing."  Is that what they wish to return to?

You cannot move forward unless you let go of the past; I fear there are those in the Association who have no wish to let go of the past.

Ted Neeson
Everton Shareholder
2 Jun 2004