A Coach and Horses

I aplogise in adavance to those who have had enough of this topic. It's finally taken Dave Wilson over a month to come up with anything even approaching the "coach and horses" he threatend as he foamed at the mouth in seething reaction to Colin's original explanation of Bill Kenwright's misdemeanours.

To be honest, it's more like a pony and trap that, by his own admission addresses only about half of Colin's points ? and he actually agrees with Colin and Kenwright's critics over the two key undeniable disasters of Kenwright's rein: KD & DK. ["Kenwright was a prick..." ? Oh dear.] But he's been pestering me to post this in the interest of "balance"...

Have a nice weekend, everyone!

And so you should post this in the interests of balance, Michael.

Most of us on here have no time to spend our days looking into all this so we look for those who have that time for insight.

Experience of life tells me there is very rarely a view that is completely right.

But glad to see the editorial balance in your post re this piece. Not.

"Colin made a lot of points in his original article, I have disagreed with about half of them and I have said why."

So we can safely say that you agree with Colin on the more substantive allegations about Kenwright. I'm glad that's sorted then.

Will somebody please give up.

The majority of Evertonians are well aware of Kenwright's shortcomings and those that are not never will.

IMO Kenwright is a first class liar and that in my book is enough for me to not want the man as Everton Chairman let alone his ineptitude at running the club.

That's all I am prepared to contribute to the ongoing saga of "He said you said".

Michael

Could you break up some of these lengthy articles with a few pictures, please?

Oh, I don't know... Sophia Loren in a bikini, or an Everton player celebrating his hat-trick against Sunderland??

Some fair points there, Dave; what I don't understand is that you obviously feel that getting rid of Kenwright is the right thing to do? So why attack Colin's piece and dispute it in such a rabid way?

He may have been a bit OTT with his rhetoric but the message was there: this guy is killing our club. You have almost admitted as much yourself with your tacit admission that the 'Spurs' fans wont go away without thier pound of flesh?

It's worth remebering that Bill said no pound of flesh exists ? only "Phillip is a friend of mine and therefore a friend of Everton"... yet more lies?

I honestly believe some on here care more about Bill than Everton itself.

With the comments isolated and lacking in context, it's a difficult article to read, and no-one comes on here to review previous articles to make it easier.

Everyone go to the pub and have fun tonight.

Dave, you've produced the best defence possible and I congratulate you on it. Colin's article needed a response and you given a fine one. Unfortunately, I remain swayed by Colin's views.

In particular, I take issue with point number 4; In my view, our squad is valuable only in the minds of misguided Evertonians. Apart from Jack Rodwell, we have no-one we could sell and replace with assets left over to strengthen. I am afraid you have valiantly attempted to defend the indefensible.

If this was the mystical "coach and horses" defence of Kenwright, I'm afraid no coach... and no horse ? plenty of equine stuff to put on the roses though.

Dave,
No mention of 'watch this space' ? now where have I heard that one?

Dave, congratulations in finally responding... but to be honest your responses are hardly an argument as they have no compelling smoking gun evidence or fact behind them and read like a retort rather than a balanced rebuke to disprove anything:

1) Is this a denial of our stock being higher than it had been for years? And no investment to respond from the chairman with investment to push to the next level would be what exactly?

2) Was the optimism of Evertonians lost with no movement by the Chairman or his lies of lines like "watch this space"?

3) Yes, all clubs sell to buy... but clubs also buy without having to sell beyond those mentioned. with their Sky money ? it's both ways, not just one.

4) Can you please detail what particular player we could sell right now today to whom and what asset we could regain ownership of?

5) Walter Smith's recommendation brought Moyes to BK's attention, there is no fact whatsoever that he knew anything about him at all prior to that. Yes he interviewed and employed him but he most certainly didn't seek him off his own back or Jenny's.

6) Supposition on both sides but you have no proof of BK's power on the board ? just as Colin doesn't ? but a board member does have a vote and many things happened during his board membership.

8) Supposition again from both sides but equally you can't claim high ground as you have as little proof too, the documented stories that the Trinity newspapers ran about Gregg who was previously a long standing supposed friend of BK but he allowed to be character assasinated whilst retaining control of the club with the fabled Fortress Sports Fund which to this day remains one of the biggest porkies in the club's history.

9) An amazing claim that the Greggs forced Birch out? Proof please as that sounds really interesting.

10) Again, proof from you too, please, Dave as you seem so fond of your side of the story

12) Proof of your "shoe-in" please, Dave, with evidence or are you conceding this is your supposition?

13) Proof from your side of the story, Dave?

14) Again, proof please, Dave?

Supposition in a lot of responses but agreement in many other more damning sections.

Dave's eye catching headline brought back fond memories of another Coach and Horses and thirst quenching bitter shandies.

It is 4:30 am, outdoors it is 50°F with a forecasted 100°F before lunch and I cannot be bothered with this latest episode of the Kenwright saga.

Much praise to contributors from both sides. It shows we have concerned people who care passionately about our club.

If I were to make a comment it would be only to emphasise the OUR in my previous sentence. Coming from someone 12,000 miles away that may seem odd yet my love for our club is stronger than it ever was.

Before the sand gets too hot for walking on I am off with my dogs for a dip in the Indian Ocean. Jeez it's a bastard of a life eh'.

Per #5 ? Send us some pictures, Dick. Sun, sea, sand... and your rabid hounds splashing in the surf. Watch out for them Somali pirates, though!

Respect for trying Dave. But you should have thought longer and harder, a bit more.

I gave up when I read it was Jenny who got him the job.

Oh dear God.

The fact that Jenny Seagrove had a say in who should manage our club says everything about the ability of Bill Kenwright to run OUR club!

It's sad that we even have to spend so much time debating this shite, to be a great club we will need a great leader in the boardroom, in the dugout and on the pitch. IMO we only have one of the three, we should all be hoping that we get all three and stop accepting mediocrity.

Mike McLean - ditto.

BK: "It's a tricky one, we MUST get the right man... Jenny, you willingly let Michael Winner have sex with you for six and a half years, I think people respect your decision making, who do you fancy as our next manager?"

Nice try, Dave... but as usual, lacking. You lost me at... well, the title, as I knew it would be all hot air and no substance.

The Rat and Parrot.

Some of those rebuttalls are triumphs of legal logic, we would be Rumpoles bow to the master, here's one...

"Er... No he didn't..." ? Mandy Rice Davis would be proud of you, Dave.

My view: BK's 'good' (?) points / decisions got us where we are today... (and this goes for Moyes as well). BK's 'bad' points / decisions not only stop us progressing but the KD fiasco fucked us up good style. Enough to get my vote on a Survivors elimination.

This thought goes through my head... We all know The Life of Brian, "What have the Romans ever done for us?" Well, as it turned out, almost everything. Can we apply this to BK (and the Board) in any meaningful manner??

Personally I am delighted this article was posted, if only cos it gave me the chance to PMSL at Eugene's comment #17

Sorry, Dave, have to agree with most previous posts, a bit of a waste of time. Seems you've spent weeks cherry picking-certain comments attributed to Colin and more or less failed unconvincingly to rebut them.

I know the support is split on BK but up to now I am still waiting for someone to disprove any of Colin's comments. Your certainly haven't.

Well if Jenny Seagrove had her say, then it's a good job Martin Shaw didn't throw his hat into the ring for the manager's job!

Unlucky Dave.

To clear up one point, have a guess* who is quoted here:

"I was one of those fans who wrote angrily to the directors 40 years ago when Everton got rid of my hero Dave Hickson.

"I told them they didn't understand us. I therefore had every sympathy with those people who were totally bemused about the sale of Duncan Ferguson to Newcastle. It was history repeating itself.

However, we have had a serious financial situation and it is something the present board is now trying to deal with."

*Here's a clue, type 'Bill Kenwright' into the Toffeeweb/Google search facility at the top of this page and then click on the following link:

http://www.toffeeweb.com/club/business/chairmen/kenwright.asp

In other news, I see Blackburn Rovers have been 'takenover.'

Who's Bill Kenwright?

Ciaran,
he is Spartacus.

Another pathetic piece Dave.

Forgetting the ins and outs of Kenwright for a minute, Dave makes one huge point about the nature of this website in particular.

This is that those at the club who deserve criticism (which, from time to time, is everybody ? be it Kenwright, Moyes for bad or slow decisions, and players for poor form or lack of effort) often get criticised by the angry, vociferous serial complainers out there in a manner that is way, way over the top and out of proportion with what they're doing, or have done, wrong.

That casts many of us in the role of defender ? 'apologist' if you must, when in fact we have our own criticisms, we just don't go as all-out and full-on and over-the-top as 'the angry few (or many?!)'. We then get accused of all sorts (accepting mediocrity, holding the club back etc. etc.) and assumptions are made about us that aren't accurate, such as we lap up anything Kenwright says, think Moyes can do no wrong and so on, when this simply isn't the case.

In Dave's case, and I may be missing some information here, he seems to have been cast as Kenwright's apologist, when in fact he believes Kenwright has very much been in the wrong for some things (he even calls him a prick at one point in the article above).

What some people need to realise is that, just because somebody isn't as rabid and angry as you about something, it doesn't mean they think the exact opposite to you with the same degree of vehemence that you hold your views. I think this quotation is indicative of that:

"I honestly believe some on here care more about Bill than Everton itself."

I don't know exactly who Ste's referring to in that (it clearly can't be Dave ? given the 'prick' comment) but it can't possibly be true, or even close to true of anyone. It's a case of somebody with a strongly held viewpoint completely failing to make any attempt to understand why someone might disagree with them.

Nobody gives a shit about Bill Kenwright, except in that they think he is good, or has been good for the club (often in comparison to what's gone on at other clubs). Now he may not be good for the club, but that's you disagreeing with their opinion, I don't understand how you go from that to making up other people's opinions that clearly can't be correct.

Dave's interpretation of the situation and Kenwright's record may be different to yours, but this piece taken on its own (I haven't read every single post on the other threads this follows on from) is an attempt to balance out a discussion, defending Kenwright where he thinks the criticism is unfair and criticising him when he thinks it is warranted. It certainly shouldn't be described as 'pathetic' just because he thinks different things to you.

Colin, I agree with your views but don't like your dismissive response to Dave's article. You have the knowledge and ability to finally naill Kenwright and Dave's article. Do it.

Thought Dave's post was well balanced, there is always two sides to EVERY story, ALWAYS. If you choose to believe one side or the other, what you believe will always lead to a conflict of opinions, however, if you open your mind, ears, it might lead to a constructive debate.

Seems having the first 3 letters of your name as Ken means you talk absolute bullshit.

If the pro BK contributors to this site would like to explain how this article is balanced with some of the responses contained in Dave's piece having no proof whatsoever I'd be intrigued as to their definition of balance.

Neil's response which now appears as an article in it's own right has gaping flaws which attempt to detract to BK's failings as if they are not his fault; as BK is the Chairman of the club I've always been astonished by his claims and similar responses such as Neil's as to just how the hell he isn't responsible? Surely business class 101 should be a QED of the top man/woman is ultimately responsible for the decisions and directions of that business; they employ suitably skilled staff below them to drive their strategy and vision, if those staff succeed you claim the glory of employing them and if they fail they get bounced and you get the brickbats for employing them.

The "poor old Bill can't win" scenario smacks of naivety, his is failing as custodian of the club to develop it and either employ staff that can or move on accepting defeat and make himself a handsome profit in the process. The trouble is he has hung on and hung on and failed to do either.

I just want us to win on Monday night.

"I aplogise in adavance to those who have had enough of this topic. It's finally taken Dave Wilson over a month to come up with anything even approaching the "coach and horses" he threatend as he foamed at the mouth in seething reaction to Colin's original explanation of Bill Kenwright's misdemeanours.

To be honest, it's more like a pony and trap that, by his own admission addresses only about half of Colin's points ? and he actually agrees with Colin and Kenwright's critics over the two key undeniable disasters of Kenwright's rein: KD & DK. ["Kenwright was a prick..." ? Oh dear.] But he's been pestering me to post this in the interest of "balance"...

Nice of you to take time off from kissing Fitzy's arse to give Dave Wilson a patronising pat on the head,.

Now you get back to describing Fitzy's articles as "seminal" or take some time out to read Sir Terry Pratchett's Dimbleby lecture on Alzheimers and assisted dying if you want to know the real meaning of seminal.

Steve, Colin wrote a comprehensive article on Kenwright's failures. Dave wrote a reasonable defence. Most posters, myself and the editor included, have agreed with Colin's analysis. I agree that Michael's introduction to the article was a little patronising but it is, in my view, fair editorial comment. Censorship would have been worse and, thankfully it doesn't happen here.

Steve, sorry for upsetting you again... You might just force me to share with you some of the background material I received from Dave Wilson that more than justifies any comments I have made... patronizing or otherwise. But something tells me you're not really interested.

And as for "kissing Fitzy's arse"... I get plenty of flack for daring to disagree with some of our learned contributors ? surely you will at least allow me to agree with one? Especially when most of what he says is bang on the money.

And please forgive me for not rising to the bait over my use of the word "seminal"; since you kindly provided the definition for the meaning and context in which I'd used the word, exactly as I'd intended, I couldn't quite see the point of your comment.

Or were you trying to say I had ejaculated all over Colin's piece? Yes, that would probably make more sense...

Dave Wilson!!!!

Thanks

Your return brings back what I loved about TW when I came over with Landon.

If only McGlone comes back in . . . . ..

The reason I only tackled half of Colins points is I agreed with the rest of what he had to say.

The point of the article ? and I actually say this in it ? is to dismiss the preposterous notion that people who don't blame Kenwright for EVERYTHING, can't agree on any points with the people who dislike him.

I also wanted to put to bed this idea that these claims made against Kenright just couldn't be contested, I have contested lots of them.

Gavin ; I`m not trying to change your or anybody else's mind, I know I couldn't. I`ve seen your posts and know where you all stand, I`m just giving another view. My take on these events as they happened.

In this country, the onus is on the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused. So sorry, mate, no proof, I was just giving my opinion ? like Colin

I just hope that people who dont subscribe to the "Guilty of one thing, therefore he`s guilty of everything" will look at the points I`ve made and draw their own conclusions.

Andy 35,

Your definition of comprehensive differs from mine, Colin wrote a very long article, some of it indisputable fact, some of it disputable supposition, some of it guesswork at best and some of it pure fantasy, and that is where the problems of this divisive issue lie in my opinion. I am not interested in what Colin personally thinks about any given situation, I am interested in what's true and what's false.

Comparing us to the victims of the Titanic? Really? The lurking shadow director pulling the strings? Really? Picking a majority shareholder as new Chairman elect that has been behind Kenwright in every decision he has ever made? in spite of making a case for basically blaming Kenwright for everything bad thats ever happened to EFC, Colin would back the election of one of his fellow bad decision makers as our new Chairman because? "he's a proper Evertonian" {a bit like grounhog day this isn't it?}.

Instead of using thousands of words to make the same tired old points that we all know about, just say it like it is: Colin and his supporters want Kenwright out at any cost good or bad.
Micheal 36.
You don't upset me mate, you do annoy me though, your comments preceding this article were uncalled for and unneccasary, why not just publish the article then comment on it as you see fit?

Steve Smith. Colin never just came along, and thought "I know, I'll do a piece on BK, just for the fun of it."

His piece was in response to someone asking him to back up his claims, in regards to BK.

This he has done, with aplomb. Funny how the people who try to defend BK have yet to still make a convincing defence of the man. Even after a few attempts.

Also, if Colin never obliged the request, you would all be on here slagging him off for not doing it.

Brian,

I'm aware of why Colin wrote the piece, and it wasn't to do with backing up his claims, it was a response to an overseas supporter wanting to know the the off-field history of the club, I believe.

So it would depend on your definition of history, I suppose. History to me means something that actually happened in the past, it doesn't mean someone guessing what may have happened, or someone speculating on a theory that exists only in the mind of the writer. History usually works for me when it's based on fact, perhaps you're less demanding as long as it suits your mindset?

You say Colin presented his case with aplomb; I say it was more like a party political broadcast on behalf of KEIOC, and like most party political broadcasts, is slanted towards making the party look to have all the answers.

As I've already said above, if we could just stick to the facts instead of throwing in the odd fantasy director here and the Titanic disaster there, then maybe the debate would move on a bit.

Oh and you assume I am a defender of Kenwright? Well maybe or maybe not... Colin's shadow director fantasy would leave him totally blameless would it not?

"Funny how the people who try to defend BK have yet to still make a convincing defence of the man. Even after a few attempts."

See posts 28 and 38. Your comment suggests you didn't read them before posting them.

Steve,

You've mentioned the "shadow director" issue a number of times in this and other threads, with little purchase. I'm interested that you have singled this out from Colin's original post, and I would like to discuss it with you.

I'm guessing part of your concern is that the accusation was made with no evidence or proof: Sir Phillip Green ? Everton Shadow Director? Is that right?

As I understand it ? and please correct me if I'm wrong ? it's not a position that would be widely publicised; it's not something you will find listed at Companies House.

My reading of Colin's original suggestion is just that ? Colin was surmising that the role SIr Phillip Green appears to have, in connection with Everton Football Club, is (to all intents and purposes) that of a shadow director.

Now, I recognize and accept that to be floated suggestion, a thought, a conjecture, a proposal, a way of capturing in a single phrase the intent and purpose of what is, on the face of it, a very puzzling business arrangement. I absolutely agree that it's all supposition and that there is entirely no proof of this ? but we know that Sir Philip somehow has a very strong connection to EFC; while for balance there's nothing that says with sufficient clarity for me that Sir Philip is not acting like a shadow director.

So, with your permission, let's float the balloon and see how far it flies. Is it really that unreasonable to suggest Sir Philip Green may well be acting like ? or indeed that he may actually be ? a shadow director of Everton Football Club?

Michael,

Are you being serious with your last post? The supposed relationship between Green and Kenwright with regards Everton Football Club is being used on this site to criticise Kenwright yet you openly admit there is no evidence at all to suggest that "Sir Philip Green may well be acting like ? or indeed that he may actually be ? a shadow director of Everton Football Club?". However your response to the fact that there is no evidence at all to substantiate this issue is to say " let's float the balloon and see how far it flies."

Exactly, David.

There are some things relating to Everton Football Club that are unknowable ? at least unknowable in the absolute terms you and others demand (ie, irrefutable proof). This is a case in point; no-one really knows the role that Green has at Everton; there is no proof that he is a Shadow Director, yet there is some evidence that a connection exists.

Or do you deny even that? As your post indicates, daring to suggest that a connection exists is to criticise Kenwright?!? How exactly did you make that jump? I don't believe I even mentioned Kenwright.

As I say, let's float the balloon and see if some enquiring minds can address it. Are you up for that? Or just gleeful to burst the balloon?

The palpable relief on Bill's face when DK got the knockback tells me that it was someone else's baby. It's not a big jump to Phillip Green from there. No-one will ever come out and say this publicly because he clearly doesn't want this to be common knowledge in the eyes of the fans or the authorities.

Mike, read them (again) and I'm still waiting.

Also, you have got a high opinion of yourself, if you think your post should all of a sudden offer a defence of BK.

Official definition of a 'shadow director':?

"The term 'director' includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called. Where the 'official' directors of a company are, in effect, merely the face of the company and the company is actually run by a third party, it is likely that that third party is a shadow director, officially defined as a person upon whose instructions the directors of a company are accustomed to act"

Extract from the 2008 EGM [Bill Kenwright responding to the suggestion that Philip Green is a silent partner [their words] in Everton Football Club.......

Bill: "Sorry, I object to that. Phillip Green is a friend of mine. You want to talk about Phillip Green, I'll talk to you about Phillip Green. Phillip Green was there when a lot of you were behind me to buy this club. He was my friend, he still is my friend. He's there 24 hrs a day for me. If you could find any fault in Phillip Green, one of the greatest businessmen in the world, giving me advice that I pass onto this football club, I can't see it. He is not a silent shareholder."

Shareholder: "Does he hold any shares?"

Bill: "He owns no shares in this football club. Nil. He is my friend and consequently your friend.... I don't know why you think that's funny but he's a great friend to this football club. I promise you."

Audience: "In what way?"

Bill: "If you have a friend who is one of the greatest business brains in the world, who is available for you 24hrs a day, will give you advice, would you not use that friend? Because I certainly do. He's been there for me and consequently for you. Through six very difficult years, even years before the six years. He became my friend in 1998 when we in big trouble. He quickly latched onto my passion for this football club and he's been there, through thick and thin ever since. He's my friend."

NB: ....a person upon whose instructions the directors of a company are accustomed to act...

"there is no proof that he is a Shadow Director, yet there is some evidence that a connection exists."

No there isn't.

"NB.

....a person upon whose instructions the directors of a company are accustomed to act.."

Not a chance of this staying secret in a high profile company such as Everton Football Club. And would lead to expulsion from the league if this was the case, it wouldn't take a decent journalist very long to discover the existence of shadow directors of a football club if any existed, it is true that shadow directors are not listed with Companies House but they are known to banks and the Inland Revenue as well as Customs and Excise.

My point being that this is just a fantasy to embellish an article. Why do we need it? Deal with facts, maybe you'll recruit some new disciples.

Michael,

As Steve Smith says " It is just a fantasy to embellish an article. Why do we need it?"

However, I see a number of people have already decided to run with it and will use it as another tool to discredit Kenwright without any evidence.

So what are the facts, Steve? Let's start with the reason for Keith Wyness departing Everton FC so abruptly.

"Keith Wyness resigned as chief executive amid concerns over Sir Philip Green's unofficial influence over Everton's finances." ? is that something that passes your high standards of veracity?

David, am I missing something? ... I honestly don't understand your concern here with this reflecting badly on Kenwright.

Kenwright says, Sir Philip Green a friend of his, a friend of the club's, and therefore a friend of ours. What could possibly make you so paranoid that a connection be demonstrated??? Or are you saying that, if such a connection existed, then it would by definition reflect badly on Kenwright?

Why would that be so? Care to explain?

"The term 'director' includes any person occupying the position of director, by whatever name called. Where the 'official' directors of a company are, in effect, merely the face of the company and the company is actually run by a third party, it is likely that that third party is a shadow director, officially defined as a person upon whose instructions the directors of a company are accustomed to act"

I see what you are trying to infer here but you're clutching at straws, a board of any company will act on instructions or advice from various parties, banks, lawyers, consultants who are experts in a particular field, etc.etc. so your definition would call all of these people shadow directors? If the tea lady recommends a new energy-saving all-singing all-dancing tea urn and the board goes out and buys one on her advice, is she a shadow director?

"Keith Wyness resigned as chief executive amid concerns over Sir Philip Green's unofficial influence over Everton's finances." ? is that something that passes your high standards of veracity?

Did he? This is Keith Wyness, the much maligned and discredited liar {according to KEIOC} all of a sudden he's telling the truth, must try harder with your facts, Micheal.

Afraid not, Steve [49, 53 & 54] but I appreciate your right to hold such an unqualified opinion. The very definition of the shadow director is described in Kenwright?s eulogy to the shareholders... you fail to see that; most don?t.

In addition to this, you have to firstly question why Paul Gregg was paid by Philip Green for the shares now allegedly owned by Robert Earl, shares that currently reside in the ownership of a BVI company.

Secondly, what was the source of the money provided to pay Anita Gregg? Could it have been from the same source that paid Paul Gregg? On top of all that, I believe it is perfectly normal to question why directors of this football club need to approach Philip Green on matters that should be no concern of his.

It?s amazing that you have faith in the qualities of the British journalist yet, when it suits, choose to ignore the plethora of information provided by them where they identify Philip Green as the very definition of a shadow director.

I would suggest the reason why you do not question any of this is, despite your earlier protestation to the contrary, your accommodation of everything uttered by the Board and hatred of anyone and anything associated with KEIOC, which is well known ? particularly under your alter ego on Kipper.

Questioning Keith Wyness?s statement immediately following his sudden and abrupt departure is a poor attempt to shore up your paper-thin argument but not as hopeless as your tea lady analogy in which you clearly plumb the depths of desperation; you?re well aware that professional advisers, bankers, solicitors, accountants etc are exempt from being categorized as shadow directors, the high court identifying only those who exert real influence on the affairs and management of a company.

"Now, I recognize and accept that to be floated suggestion, a thought, a conjecture, a proposal, a way of capturing in a single phrase the intent and purpose of what is, on the face of it, a very puzzling business arrangement. I absolutely agree that it's all supposition and that there is entirely no proof of this "

And yet you described this article as seminal, there are a number of issues in the article that we could debate, I started with the shadow director bit because it was the easiest.

When you describe an article as seminal you must agree that to the outsider it would add gravitas, it may even imply that it is the absolute indisputable truth, you now admit that it isn't and some of it at least is based on someone's supposition rather than fact, now bearing in mind that this article was to give an overseas supporter an insight into the off-field goings on at EFC, would you say that the article is a true reflection of the past 10 or so years? Or merely someone's opinion of that period?

Colin makes some valid points and presents a good case for Kenwright's removal as Chairman, but in the same breath suggests J V Woods to replace him, based on? Oh yeah that's right: Woods was outside the Public Enquiry with a big banner supporting the anti DK group wasn't he? No? Oh well then, it must be because he's always been the dissenting voice on the Board when Bill was railroading his policies through? No?

Perhaps Colin can enlighten us as to why he would be a better Chairman than Kenwright is. Or maybe just say it how it is without trying to hide his obvious disdain for Kenwright, by saying "we'll have Woods as Chairman just so Kenwright isn't and even though that changes nothing, so what?"

Steve, bit of friendly advice, I?d go to bed, read the article again in the morning ? I at no point suggest that Jon Woods should be chairman.

Afraid not, Colin (#55) ? another wrong assumption by you that I contribute to Kipper, but don't let that stop you mate.

You know very little of the role of a shadow director and are using definitions that you've found on the net based on legality rather than the way companies are actually run; you didn't like my tea lady analogy?

What about the RBS having a say in the way LFC was eventually sold... shadow directors? Not in the court's eyes but do you think they didn't exert a real influence in the affairs and management of a company?

I'm not questioning Wyness's statement, well not as much as you have in the past, so maybe when you did it, that was also a poor attempt to shore up your arguments? Or does that not count? And on the subject of hopeless analogy's, mine may plumb the depths, but surely not as deep as the Titanic?

Now just admit that your shadow director theory is just that, as I said before ? deal with what we know, not what you think. Let's face it, you've already been wrong in three parts of your response already.

"If they could be removed who would you replace them with? Personally, I'm certain you'll all have your opinions on this, the only current member of the board I'd leave in place is Jon Woods ? as big an Evertonian as Bill Kenwright proclaims to be but without the bullshit or the baggage, he?s been a reluctant director but I?d like to think he's decent enough to put some of the recent wrongs right."

Remove and replace?

"I would suggest the reason why you do not question any of this is, despite your earlier protestation to the contrary, your accommodation of everything uttered by the board and hatred of anyone and anything associated with KEIOC which is well known particularly under your alter ego on Kipper."

A tactic you seem to use quite often in your responses to people who hold an alternative view to yours Colin, it's getting a bit tired and repetitive but also confirms your paranoia that gives rise to your more "out there" theories on the make up of Everton's hierarchy.

Colin Fitz.... paranoid? Are you sure?

Honestly, read his articles then try to show how the sum total of these "responses" could match the content and depth of just one paragraph of his.

Then again, you can just blindly continue to try to defend the indefencible. KD and DK, nuff said!!

So... Steve, wading through the deflections and side issues, you don't accept the shadow director thing because, if it were true, a bunch of important people would know about it already and serious action would have been taken.

Not sure I really believe that... but let's say I agree. The more important issue surely is Sir Philip Green's possible influence over Everton affairs, given his admitted role as Bill's advisor and "helper".

Answer me this: Do you think it possible that Bill Kenwright borrowed a significant sum of money from Green to facilitate the purchase of his Everton shares? Do you think that Green has financed the purchase of Everton shares by others, as Colin suggests?

Michael,

"Answer me this: Do you think it possible that Bill Kenwright borrowed a significant sum of money from Green to facilitate the purchase of his Everton shares? Do you think that Green has financed the purchase of Everton shares by others, as Colin suggests?"

Is this another theory that we are going to "float the balloon and see how far it flies"?

Michael,
Yes I do think that's possible and it could have an influence over the way Bill Kenwright goes about his business, I also would suggest that our creditors have a much greater say in the way the club conducts it's business, in the same way that they do with most businesses, but are they shadow directors?
Has Green given Kenwright or other people money to buy shares? Maybe, maybe not.
Again my point is that it is not a fact, it is guesswork at best. As you have already admitted.

Tom 61,
When have I tried to defend KD, DK or BK for that matter? So not really "nuff said" is it?

Colin always uses his accusation of alter ego on another site blah blah blah, you hate KEIOC blah blah blah, as a diversion away from the debate. Watch Question Time on Thursday nights, you'll see it getting used quite often. It serves to put people like you on his side and by definition, me on the other side before any debate has actually taken place, and you have proved the tactic works quite well.
Colins assumption/accusation that I must be a person who follows him around various websites in order to attack KEIOC, displays a certain paranoia don't you think?

The list of accusations seems to be shortening to me.

After weeks of challenges for people to come on and answer the claims made in the original article, there appears ? with the possible exception of Neil (24), very few people prepared to dispute the counter arguments. accusations have been shown to be mere opinion.

Neil: Kenwright spouting the party line after the event is not quite the same as him being complicit with the act. if you are close to the club, you will know of the double crossing and tripple crossing surrounding the sale of the big Scot, if you are not, I suggest you look into it... some of it is achingly funny.

The three principal ? and remaining ? charges are that Kenwright lied to us, screwed up the KD and was instrumental in trying to drag us to Kirkby.

Firstly the Kings Dock: I don't blame Kenwright; sure he embarrassed himself and the club with his ridiculous "ringfenced" claims... but that didn't cost us the deal, what cost us the deal was our inability to raise the money. Nobody came up with the neccessary.

Of course, Paul Gregg "claims" he had the solution, but given that his record for telling the truth was/is comparable to Kenwright's, surely only the desperate to believe ? or the easily led ? would buy his story.

I`ll repeat. Kenwright acted like a prick... but that didnt cost us the deal.

As for the charge of repeatedly lying: well the term "defending the indefensible" keeps springing up... and for good reason: Kenwright isn't even a good liar ? ironically he'd be a sight more popular if he was.

People like Christine and Jay in particular seem unable to accept this on any level... and while I have the utmost respect for their views I can't help thinking they expect too much, there aren`t many George Washingtons out there. Football is no longer the working mans game, different rules now apply. Take a look around... the truth and intergity that once governed football's boardrooms has long since been replaced by greed and enormous egos.

Maybe I`ve just a miserable arl cynic, but I believe the chances of replacing Kenwright with the sort of straight down the middle, man of integrity Jay and Christine so desperately want are non-existent.

Rest assured, the man who eventually succeeds Kenwright will tell us porkies too.

Steve Smith,
It's an easy one to solve. See you in a hostelry of your choice before or after the next match.

Actually I think DK and KD is "nuff said". Two complete debacles from start to finish, that are still affecting all things "Everton".

Meanwhile, it is you that is trying to play the diversionary tactics, by concentrating on the only issue that you feel you can inject some smoke and mirrors.

Pub of your choice!?

"Coach and horses" perhaps.....?

Dave Wilson, apologies, I ignored acknowledging your opening post. Obviously I disagree with its content but I acknowledge its your opinion. and you have the right to express it.

Steve Smith, I?ll repeat it again, I have made no suggestion that Jon Woods should be chairman, you can cut and paste till the cows come home and it will make no difference, the person I suggested as chairman, for a board designed to remove the influence of Philip Green was not Jon Woods.

With regard to assumptions surrounding shadow directors I would suggest it is only you who is making an assumption when you say ?you know very little of the role of a shadow director and are using definitions that you've found on the net.? You have already embarrassed yourself with your attempt to deflect from the truth when you suggested bankers, lawyers, consultants and, in a bid to dumb down the issue, the tea lady, could be seen to be meeting the definition of a shadow director. You were clearly unaware that provisions have long since been made for people operating in a professional advisory capacity. To then continue by mentioning the role of RBS in LFC is a clear demonstration of firstly your total lack of understanding on the whole subject and, secondly, your inability to accept when you?ve made a twat out of yourself - again.

Furthermore, your claim that the presence of a shadow director ?would lead to expulsion from the league? is erroneous. I?ll clarify where I obtain my information on shadow directors from, it?s from the FA, here?s what they have to say on the subject of shadow directors:

?Director? means in respect of any club, any individual person operating the powers that are usually associated with the powers of a director of a company incorporated under the companies act [as a company limited by shares] including, but not limited to: a person exercising direct or indirect control over a corporate director of the club, a person in accordance with whose directions or instructions the persons constituting the management of the club are accustomed to act or a person who exercises or is able to exercise direct or indirect control over the affairs of the club....There shall be excluded from the definition of director any legal or professional advisors acting in their professional capacity without any interest [in excess of a 5% shareholding] in the club other than its advisors.?

Now, Sir Philip Green clearly does not qualify for exemption as a legal or another professional advisor [banking, accountancy etc], yet we have heard from the mouth of Bill Kenwright himself that Philip Green meets the requirements of being classified as a shadow director as outlined by the FA and as a result many would suggest that Philip Green is a de facto director of EFC.

You claim that the above, despite the supporting evidence, is nothing more than a fantasy. I weigh up the information before me, what Bill Kenwright says, what other directors, past and present, have said, what Sir Philip Green himself has said, the plethora of information available in the media and the information I have had access to over the last few years and I arrive at the logical conclusion that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck.

You appear unable to do this, it would seem you require a zoologist to provide a certificate of authenticity or, as in this case, you need to see sight of the deed of trust which or course you and nobody else ever will. What we can see however is the effects of this relationship, the detrimental effects on the finances, the stadium and the managers ability to compete with our peers, facts that taken in conjunction with the aforementioned allow the formation of a sensible, informed, opinion.

Rather than just admit you don?t have the capacity to correctly interpret information before you, you attempt to pedantically claim that everything in the media, everything stated by the majority of people on TW, even what is stated by individuals such as Bill Kenwright, Keith Wyness, indeed Sir Philip Green himself if you look hard enough, is wrong, as it doesn?t support your agenda which is, in my opinion, based on hatred for anything and anyone associated with KEIOC, for me your opening post [34] betrays your agenda.

All I can see, so far, is eight or nine posts from you that are becoming increasingly desperate in their claims to disprove what Bill Kenwright is being accused of in the first place; introducing a shadow director and acting on advice that has not been in the best interests of the football club.

Despite your litany of misleading statements and an abundance of evidence to refute your claims, you pedantically and laughably state in [58] that it is me who is mistaken about shadow directorships and that I have suggested Jon Woods as a replacement for the current chairman.

Perhaps, in a bid to move the debate on, you should admit defeat on the shadow director and Jon Woods as chairman front and turn your attention to the real matters at hand, NTL, KD, FSF and DK, perhaps you will fair better there?

I?ll take your word that you do not post on Kipper, but you?re being slightly disingenuous when you claim that I always use such an accusation as a tactic on others, I don?t; there?s no need to use tactics to blow feeble arguments out of the water from people who usually post under a nom de plume. I have not said you follow me around, they're your words not mine.

By way of explanation, I stated that you have an alter ego on Kipper because the individual over there hates everything and anything to do with KEIOC, is arguably the biggest pedant on that site and even when proven to be demonstrably wrong, has such a high opinion of their own opinions he will continue, mule like as David O?Keeffe would say, to steadfastly defend his argument.

Some years ago, that individual took it upon himself to email the company who organised and operated a poll on DK that was on the KEIOC website; the email was so pedantic in its questioning of everything about the poll that the organisers, Survey Galaxy, after addressing what they could, passed the email and their response to KEIOC. Unfortunately the individual concerned had emailed Galaxy from their place of work so their name and personal details were revealed and when he attempted to use the contents of the Galaxy response on Kipper his identity was revealed and confirmed when a KEIOC member addressed him using his own name. Predictably, for a pedant, what followed was an outcry from the individual, he claimed to Kipper that his anonymity had been violated, human rights, data protection blah blah blah.

Who would believe it, two people called Steve Smith, both posting on Everton websites, both rabid haters of everyone and everything to do with KEIOC, both unable to admit when they?re wrong, both pedantic in the extreme, both wanting to defend the indefensible; what?s the chances of that?

Quack Quack!

Colin F & Steve S. Sometime ago I offered an opinion on this site as to the likelihood of Messrs Green & Earl operating as shadow directors; in my arrogant impertinence I assumed that my article was read and that the concentration of ideas now being mooted is as a result of my article at that time.

For the avoidance of doubt?Shadow directorship is a matter of fact, not law. In other words a course of deliberate action throughout a period of time must be shown in order for individuals to be fixed as ?shadow directors?. Neither of you are wrong in most of what you say about this method of ?governing? a company. What must be shown is the actions of the board as being complicit with the ?shadows? wishes.

This could be as innocuous as P Green saying to Bill Kenwright, ? You know Bill, it would be nice if??..?, as opposed to ?What I want now Bill is this?????.?.

Incidentally it is not an offence to be a shadow director, there are plenty knocking about; the only time their position really becomes relevant when the company enters some form of insolvent liquidation.

In all other aspects it is a matter of risk for the individual who becomes the ?shadow? to have his (or her) position exposed and open to question since the duties of directors? can be foisted on him (or her).

It?s a dark area; many companies safeguard their exposure to the risks posed by shadow directors? by rather tighter corporate governance controls than appear to exist at EFC at the minute. By the way, Colin is correct in that professional advisers (inc Banks) cannot be held out as 'shadows', (in all but the most exrtreme cases), there's a lot of precedent knocking about on this point.

Hope this helps.

COYB (if it?s safe and legal to so do)

Hello Paul,

Apologies I don?t remember reading your article, do you have a link? I?m sure you?re aware that the business relationship between Bill Kenwright and Sir Philip Green has been comprehensively reported in the press, here?s an article from eleven years ago. http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football-kenwright-secures-pounds-20m-everton-takeover-1134639.html

If the claims by Paul Gregg are true then Robert Earl would be a nominee director; as a matter of interest, what was your conclusion as to the status of Sir Philip Green?

I'll have to look at all back posts to find my bit since I didn't keep a copy; Sir P Green? An Eminence Grise (grey eminence, sorry about the French), I'm not sure that he could be fixed conclusively with shadow, although the 'circumstantial' evidence does appear pretty comprehensive.

What is of more importance, I think, is what happens now? I note that GP is being re-developed in part, all funded by the people who sell the pies and flog the shirts? R Elstone proclaims that this is entirely self-funding (sounds a bit like DK); the last time I came across self-funding was the Bernie Madoff 'ponzi' scheme, for which he is now serving life... It can't be that surely?!

This is worth looking at in another thread, since I have serious doubts about 'self-funding', It would have been helpful to all fans if Mr Elstone elaborate somewhat the means of paying for this development (at the same time excercising commercial caution) as well as which bit of EFC is offered as security whilst 'self-funding' goes ahead... but I suppose we will never truly know...

Paul,

Thanks for your input, so we're all agreed that nobody knows whether Green's a shadow Director or not.

Colin,

Just to clear up a couple of your points: The other Steve Smith was a bit upset about everyone knowing who he was, so if that was me, it would probably be best not to call myself Steve Smith again! Don't you think? You listed your "supporting evidence" I see, but just a fantasy in your mind I'm afraid Colin and I can prove it! quack quack!

I see you're using and repeating your rabid hatred blah blah blah lines even though you said you don't need to earlier in your post. So just for the record, I reserve my hatred for much more serious things than a football debate. I don't hate you {even though you said I'm a twat} I don't hate KEIOC, I do hate Maggie Thatcher {I know it's been yonks since she was PM but I can't let that one go} I didn't agree with DK, I think KD was the biggest mistake in the club's history, I do think Kenwright should step aside, but I also think it would serve us all better if we deal with facts.