Time for Some Radical Thinking

As for the non sexy football club with no global identity, nor did Man City up to 5 years ago.

As for Liverpool City...i'll let the rest take you up on that. Don't know what you're on mate, but with the greatest respect I bet it's pretty strong stuff.

Radical thinking for me is starting to redevelop Goodison one stage at a time, bit by bit, a new stadium is out of the question. One thing that gets me everytime, where is all the money going, richest league in the world, we have a small squad and wages are kept low. So where's all the money going?

What was noticeable as the Premier League has been pitched to American audiences over the past couple of years is how some people were attracted to Everton by that very history, that community spirit, that people's (small "p") club image.

And when it comes to retaining our match-going following and keeping attendances in the mid- to high-30,000s even during the lean times with no silverware, it's that unity around a traditional club that will (and has, in my opinion) keep us ticking over.

I'm not convinced, though, that this quest for a global brand is all that important in the grand scheme of things because the only thing that will garner a big global following is success. Once you start winning things, you attract the bandwagon-jumpers and the TV audience and the big sponsorship money.

In that sense, you can change your name all you like – I'm going to assume you're not on a wind-up with this one and say that, frankly, I find the idea utterly abhorrent – but unless you're in the Champions League or challenging for the title, it's not going to make much difference.

We need to work with what we have, which is our rich history and our close ties to the area in which we've played for 136 years. We are cultivating and nurturing our own brand at the moment, one that fits with the incremental moves we're making as we start to push against the glass ceiling above us. We need investment, not to sell our soul and identity in what might prove to be an ephemeral epoch of huge money and overnight success in the Premier League.

As soon as Kirkby died a death nobody at the club seems to have a clue as to what direction we go. They could have said in order to move on we will keep the TV money ring-fenced for the re-development of Goodison or towards a new stadium.

Instead they keep watching the wage bill rise and our squad gets reduced season on season.

Failing to plan is planning to fail and that is what our board are guilty of both short and long-term.

We could always amalgamate with our neighbours and then we could all share in the glory and it would cure our problems as a fan-base overnight wouldn't it? After all one club became two clubs so why shouldn't two clubs become one? Now that would be radical don't you think?

Owner taking a hit on valuation when they paid £20mn and are asking £120mn for their shares???

Renaming the Club Liverpool City, FFS!!

Is this RE or BK posting when he's pissed?

Think about it: in what other context does it appear? Everton... mints. That's it. Pretty much every time you hear the word "Everton" it's something to do with our team, one of the things that makes it a special club. Few others (Juventus, Benfica, for example) can lay claim to such a readily-identifiable moniker. Change it, and you risk instantly losing that recognisability. Change it to "Liverpool City" and you risk a) confusion of us with the Dark Side, something nobody wants, and b) the perception that we're trying to cash in on their "global appeal" *spit*.

By extension of this, it really oughtn't to be that hard marketing such a unique brand as Everton FC. Nevertheless at times they make it look very difficult.

We won't reach the next level until the Board is changed and a rich owner is willing to pump money in to buy Bill and the crooks out. I hate this "Be careful what you wish for" attitude... for example, if we got a Tan instead of a Mansour and were left in the lurch, Bill can just do what he did the last time — step in and pay nothing for the club again. Invest nothing, sell the training ground, Kitbag will take over the merchandise again, Sodexho will do the catering and Nike can do the shirt deal again.

Be careful what you wish for...

None of the London Clubs carry the name of their City, neither do Juventus, Lazio, Rangers, Celtic, Aston Villa, Ajax, Feyenoord or Benfica.

Even the normally toothless FA seem set to prevent Hull City being renamed at the senseless whim of their owner.

We definitely do need radical thinking; a new owner prepared to provide the finance to allow the Club to compete again for silverware.

Incidentally, Liverpool City was the name given to a singularly unsuccessful Rugby League Club.

Assuming I've got the date wrong and you are serious, then I would hope that when you write an article, you first of all write it about what YOU think.

Somehow, you seem to have taken a poll that no-one else knows about and assume that your views and conclusions are what WE, as Evertonians think, rather than yourself.

You say "WE hate change" and use the petition against that abomination of a badge (my view, not all Evertonians' views). I don't believe Evertonians hate change; I believe, however, that we change things without thinking of the consequences, at our peril.

The badge, in my view, is the symbol of our club, it should stand for all that our club has ever been and is now and in the future. Personally, I thought the badge was a childish, toytown representation of our club, which makes me ashamed to see it portrayed so prominently around the ground.

You then go on to say that it adds no value to the revenue potential of the club. I strongly disagree with your assertion. I think the major reason the badge was changed again, was because the club were aware that sales were likely to be affected if they kept it.

Liverpool spent megabucks getting someone to redesign their liverbird, as image is important for financial and for identity reasons.

Stability isn't the word that I would use that is uppermost in my mind. I want to see us be able to take on other teams with vast sums of money at their disposal. You mention, quite rightly, that we don't want a Tab; but the argument about ownership can become simplified by those who argue that in order to progress, we need a new owner (me... and some others I guess) and those who come out with the mantra "be careful what you wish for!" (Does my head in that one!)

As for your idea of renaming us as Liverpool City. Well, I can see what you're assessment of one of our our problems is (lack of global exposure) but I think we would (a) not be able to as I would see the football authorities refusing it... but (b) more importantly, we follow EVERTON.

I will leave it to my last paragraph to confirm my devotion to the club, which is not in question here and nobody on this site or anywhere else for that matter can question my support.

They no doubt can question my sanity and that is fair enough but my points are, in my opinion, my points and I believe them.

I as much as anyone else want us to win things and want all the things that go with that, if that can be achieved as we are based on what we do currently with some luck also then great, let's continue and if we get some extra cash then redevelop Goodison which is what I would prefer (Villa is a fantastic ground).

Lyndon, why when something is so polarised to your view or anyone else for that matter is it a wind-up? Check back on your articles, I have said it before.

I say it in the context of attracting a buyer and nothing else; nobody can deny that the RS get considerable profile for that luxury and we do not.

A new owner needs something to firstly attract him and then to work with; I currently do not believe the latter exists at the moment and the former is not without its merits.

I think it is well known on this site that I support the board and the club as long as they are the board and I know first hand they do the best they can.

On another point, and Lyndon you are entitled to the opinion you have, but I have to say, History and Tradition are wonderful things when you have the luxury to dwell on them; please tell me what in the last 25 years has that history and tradition given the club? Yes, it keeps people like me and you buying season tickets every year because we are entrenched but I struggle beyond that.

The silly comment about Everton as a surburb of Walton is not surprising considering who made it, but, to the outside world, Everton is a football ground in Walton and nothing else. To the city of Liverpool, a ward with 14,000 inhabitants but that won't attract a buyer either.

I am sure I am up for considerably more abuse, which is fair enough, but to be clear there is no wind-up here; I have complete conviction in what I say and that is enough for me.

That's obviously where we differ because I believe we "dwell" on history and tradition precisely because it's one of our biggest strengths when we're not able to compete for the top honours.

I believe they are central to what Everton is. It's what drove thousands to descend on Goodison in 1994 to collectively will us to stay up in that Wimbledon game; it's what not only spurs people to renew their season tickets each year but also makes us one of the best-supported (perhaps, in terms relative to our reach and base, the best-supported) clubs away from home despite the economy and the slender nature of the hope that we can finish in the top four in the short term; it's what attracts certain people in the game to the club (witness how much Martinez has taken so much of our history and folklore to heart) and gave rise to the "once Everton has touched you" mantra; it's what keeps alive the tradition of passing Everton down to generations of youngsters who might otherwise support Liverpool or one of the other "bigger" clubs and provides lifeblood for the future.

Identity is at the heart of supporting a football team and I believe that you risk doing far greater damage chasing fickle and ephemeral global attention if you mess with it than if you continue to nurture and build it at home among the people who matter the most when it comes to the prolonged life of the club.

"We gathered in the kitchen, as usual. Discussion quickly turned to electric versus gas hobs...".

Nah! "From My Seat" - every time!

I know the answer, Ken, but would the future supporter and the kids of today give the same answer as you or I?

It seems to me that those selling the club have no belief in what we are. Founder members with, and you may disparage it, a history that means something to many people.

Why not replace the utterly fucking atrocious marketing of the club with something approaching adequate. Not radical, I grant you... but a start.

For example, will a five-year-old kid today think like we do in 20 years time? I doubt it very much, they will be as loyal as they are to their new iPhone until the next one comes out.

And this is the the rub for me: we have to think of the club on a long term basis and in doing that we have to think of what the future will be and what it will require; a new owner is only a part of the jigsaw puzzle.

Founder members — Woolworths were the first on the High Street with what they offered and look what happened to them.

Have a look at the list of founder members by the way — how many of them are currently playing in the Champions League and winning trophies?

Paul, I'm sorry that I reacted in the way I did to your obviously well meaning post. I think though, that some of the out of the box thinking will need to concentrate on the option (if there is one) that will help us most to give us what we all want. I think we all want our club to be up there, as we were in the sixties and and eighties, challenging for the title and going into Europe.

I think you said in your post that you support the board and that they do their best. Well, let's look at it. They don't seem able or willing to invest the funds reqyuired to give us a fighting chance of competing with Chelsea, Arsenal, Man City, Man U, Liverpool or Spurs.

A Multi Billionaire bought Chelsea when they'd won bugger all, were not sexy and were in a land locked ground like us. Arsenal, have a great reputation and history but were in a land locked ground like us, yet they have a billionaire on the board who wants to take over the club and they have a new ground into the bargain.

Man City had won nothing for decades, in fact had dropped two divisions in the recent past. They were courageous enough to go for the new ground and are now one of the richest clubs in the world and, unless football implodes, are just going to go from strength to strength.

Spurs are very similar to us, in a ground the same size and design as ours and have not won the title for Donkeys years. They have a billionaire owner and have plans for a new ground and spend mega bucks on their team. Whether they become successful or not, we'll have to wait and see they have financial backing.

Don't really need to mention those over the park.

Then there's us. Up to around 1987 we were considered to be in the top five. Thewn we slid down and down. We had a chance of a world class stadium, didn't take it and just kept treading water in an ageing ground with no sign of an improved ground or a new owner.

There are other teams which, up till recently, would never have been in contention for taking us over but there are several clubs now, who are in that financial postion.

Seems to me that, unless the club is bought by a financial institution or Billionaire, I cannot see any other outcome that slowly but surely, we will be left behind in a ground that desperately needs rebuilding, with know money to do it. Seems to me that Bill Kenwright is an Evertonian whoi is living a dream. I fear though that if he doesn't sell up...soon, we will be left with the nightmare.

On a more serious note, the rate of revenue growth of all the other clubs that make up the top 7 has been growing at a far greater rate than Everton. Soon all these clubs will have turnovers at least 4 times this club. How in seven hells can anyone compete when the playing field is so unbalanced?

I only ever have the future of the club in my thoughts, I understand what you have said about the other clubs; however, London is a micro bubble and certainly attracts big investors for lots of reasons — it's the capital, it has a growing population and a very multi-cultural one which is an opportunity to attract new support.

Manchester City was an easy choice: free stadium basically and a club carrying the global name of Manchester and a population that is both growing and again more multi-cultural than Liverpool.

I would love some institution to come along and invest in the club but that will either come on the basis they get what they want before they buy it or they get what they want which they will be entitled too if they buy it. I for one would be open-minded to a name change as long as we kept everything else. I really do believe the name change would be an attraction. One thing is for certain: the RS would hate it and fight us all the way but they could do nothing about it at all.

If I had to tackle any of those problems, my first job would be to redevelop Goodison Park, even if it took me 10 years. I am sure the rest of that list would become insignificant as time passed.

The limbo we find ourselves in at present is frankly like a slow death. Why didn't our owners earmark the extra £20m we will receive this season to start building a new stand?

You would almost think they are out to make as much money as possible, or they really are very stupid.

Earl & Woods are clearly not stupid. Kenwright is a puppet. I do wonder what value they bring to the club, can someone offer an explanation?

One thing really ground my gears though Paul and it's this line " they would not be for the likes of Robert or Bill or any true Evertonian", which Robert? The rugby man Bobby Elstone or the Spurs supporter who hasn't been to the ground in 5 years?

Well it's a good job.. As it's hard work getting the kids interested in EFC.
Before I get pelters, I speak as a southern based Evertonian.

Firstly, Destination Kirkby was not as thought as it should have been and the Kings Dock was a major opportunity missed but it is what it is and that is the past.

I really do find it disrespectful to Bill when people say Earl and Woods are not stupid and Bill is a puppet, why do you think they are shareholders? Who brought them in? Bill is as bright as either of them in my opinion.

The two other main shareholders are purely that – shareholders who acquired shares at the right time and will make a substantial profit at some point. I am not sure they offer much or do much from an operational perspective at all, nor from any liability perspectives, apart from their own.

Bill for that matter has taken risks and has kept us in the fight at the very least; yes, more debt on the club but, from what I can see, manageable debt today and that is something compared to other clubs.

He has appointed some good managers and the club today is as vibrant as it's been for years due to some good operational management changes by Robert and overseen by the Board.

Yes, we do not have many assets to shout about but we are a force; if it was not for the two losses against Chelsea and Tottenham (teams who spend a fortune), which we dominated and should have won, we would be in the hunt for the title.

It's turned into a hobby horse for some to shoot this Board and it's not fair to not see another perspective. A new owner may come on board and burden his acquisition cost onto the club — something I would expect Bill and his board to resist.

The answer is I am afraid we have shareholders who can invest no more; they are entitled to protect their initial investment... indeed, profiteer from it they have earned that right by investing in the first place. As far as what value they bring, I would suggest negligible, apart from Bill and his operational team, who do good work with what they have to work with and for that they deserve some credit.

It's a balance of fine margins for a club like Everton; we possibly with the current squad including current loanees with the addition of a £20million striker could qualify for the Champions League or do we as Kevin Tully suggests spend it on the start of the development of Goodison Park? Another question which you would get polarised views on. For what it's worth, I would spend it on the striker.

Gavin — he is the Chief Executive who operates under a tight budget and with a diverse board to manage also, it's not an easy job at any club but at least he stands up and does what he can do within his remit. I never understand why people give them so much abuse when they do not know half of what they do for the club.

There are a number of other clubs in the premiership who are not in London, nor are they particularly "sexy" have been bought and my fear is that we will, sooner or later, if this board is not bought out, leave us further and further behind.

James, in order for a manager top put some real winners on the pitch, he will need funds. You ask is it really that hard to put together a team that doesn't bottle every big game. I think it is, if your funds are limited. However, I think Roberto Martinez has improved our play considerably and given another summer or two in the job, will see us progress. But if clubs are spending £50 million on one player and we are spending less than £20 mill on all our incoming players, then it's likely to show where it matters, on the pitch.

My view is that the extremely poor record of the current board has led us to where we are now, so we are where we are. I don't know what, if any, enquiries have been made about buying our club. But it seems odd to me that one of the best supported clubs in the country, has had no enquiries if it is for sale.

Look at the statistics: Bill Kenwright took over a buisness that he couldn't afford and he's had to completely asset-strip Everton just to keep the club standing still. For all the people who defend the Everton Board... Why? What have they done in the last 12 years to make us a more successful football club?

How about we do what every other Club has done? Redevelop our stadium! Villa, Newcastle, both landlocked sites, both Clubs winning naff all, but problems overcome by sensible, staged, PLANNED redevelopment. You can add Spurs, Chelsea pre Abramovich, Manure, even Liverpool to the list.

How did they do it? They had a plan. They did it over a number of years. They borrowed the money and they are paying it back over time, like your mortgage. As Kevin Tully alludes to, there is currently no discernible plan. We just bumble from one transfer window to another.

It's been this way since before Kenwright, but now there is so much TV money coming in, there is simply no excuse. The Board are fucking useless. If Banks are reticent to lend, then they should act as Guarantors, but they won't because carpet bagging doesn't involve long term commitment, in fact it involves very little commitment at all.

Our biggest problem is the obvious one of we haven't enough spending power to compete with the 'money clubs'. Now you can dress that up which ever way you want, but until we do, we are never going to break this glass ceiling.

We need to be consistent challenging for the PL title, but I cant see that happening anytime soon, can you?

We are the best of the rest, which given our financial status is no mean feat!

Personally, I liked "The People's Club" while I hated "the badge". The former was a spontaneous, authentic comment from DM while the latter was an ill-informed exercise in marketing futility (it wasn't based on customer needs or wants and the outcome was crap).

Everyone knows the fundamentals of football have shifted with the advent of the Premier League and the Champions League. Money was always a factor but it has been magnified now.

Football clubs are triaged into the Upper Class, Middle Class and Working Class. In George Orwell speak, we are Upper Middle Class. What will move us up?

The current top 4 have all had changes of ownership to inject fresh cash and perhaps the radical thinking that your headline requests. Organic growth seems to be a thing of the past at least in the top tier.

I was hoping that RM would be our Brian Clough, a transformational winning manager. He may still prove to be that in the next couple of seasons. But these days, without the Upper Class fundamentals, the cynic in me thinks that such a manager would be poached away pretty quickly after some short-term success.

I'm not a BK hater (dons tin hat) – I was hoping he was the recent Euromillions winner – but it's obvious that our glass ceiling in the Prem era is 4th. Still, I'd prefer BK to Tan or his ilk. I don't want to be an American franchise or some Russian's plaything.

We're a bit like that Malaysian Airlines scenario: gone off the radar, a bit of a mystery to solve and it's the hope that kills you.....

The lure of London that is alluded to presumes they would want to move close to their chosen club. I think not and we have some nice hotels or luxury properties that would suffice.

Our history, length of time in the top flight would possibly impress a buyer but even that I think wouldn't matter.

The only thing that would matter would be the asking price and viability of any deal being done. Therefore, with Billy Bullshitter at the helm, I personally won't be holding my breath.

As for the name change, Paul, where would it all end? We would be the Trigger's broom of the football world!

Only in the last 40 years Raymond #269, before Shankly nobody had heard of them and the whole world knew the little suburb of Walton

I reckon Paul's original post is trying to get people to discuss / stretch our minds about tackling changes. However, Paul's point about not focusing on our history is a mistaken notion. We should be proud of our history, and be one that to be at the forefront of leading changes.

We have always done that, from being founder members of the Football League, the first to play with numbers on the back of the jerseys, first to have under-soil heating, one of the first (if not the first) to have a purpose-built stadium etc.

The problems we have today are a result of lack of forward planning, not because we kept harking back to a glorious past.

Daft.

But on the other hand we are waiting for somebody even dafter than Boys Pen Bill to come along and take it off his hands.

So what does that make us?

We have (I hope) 3 years left of a 4-year window for Bobby to pull us up by our boot straps. Because only on field success will stop us from being Leeds in slow motion...

You say "I get the feeling that Everton fans do not really know what they want for their club." This sentence seems to make an assumption that Everton fans are a single entity and we should expect them to have a clear, unified vision. In a sense we do... but, given that it's not likely to be achieved any time soon, we need to look at which bits of that vision are the most important.

You seem to be an advocate of the 'Everton must win at all costs' school. I do not agree with you. Taken to the extreme, I'd rather Everton were relegated with only local players and an absolute hard core of dedicated support than were called Liverpool City and playing in the Champions League with some cheating disgrace of a South American providing everybody's clearest image of our club.

Of course, football is about winning. You play to win or you don't play at all. The results add up over a season to try to put you as high up a league table as possible. But in the end, football is about so much more than just winning. Football, and especially Everton, is about belonging, identity and tradition. It's about knowing you support the greatest club in the world and not giving a fuck what anyone else thinks, especially anyone who supports Man Utd, Liverpool, Chelsea or Man City. I wouldn't swap places with those clubs for all the trophies in Real Madrid's fascist bank-rolled cabinet.

If you sell it all for a trophy, what happens? The new season starts and you don't have that trophy any more. Someone else wins it, you get upset because now you think you're entitled to win just for being who you are, or because you spend the most money on wages. That may be enough for some clubs and some fans, but I expect so much more from Everton Football Club.

I actually think we may be agreeing; my post states let's be radical if we desire all of the things that come with a top four finish and a trophy-laden cabinet or be happy with what we are and what we have, with the occasional bit of excitement. I get that exciting feeling the minute I set off for the match and, when I arrive at the ground, I am in my second home.

However, when I look at it, maybe that's just a few of us and then I do really think: "Will the buyers of tomorrow and the kids of today feel the same if we do not start to give them something to look up to?"

No, the biggest single incentive offered to footballers, particularly foreign imports who don't know nor care about history or tradition, is cash. Which is why we will struggle to attract the sort of players who gravitate towards the Etihad. Take Lukaku for instance. He appears to be intelligent and articulate as well as ambitious and has stated that he wants CL football so expects to go back to Chelsea next season. However, if Chelsea were to offer him for sale and we could afford him and offered him £200k a week, do you think his CL desires might take a back seat for a couple of seasons? I do. Our name isn't the big issue here, money is.

As per the debts, the simplistic analysis is that the business is being ran very poorly and with little or no acumen or expansive ideas to take advantage of matchday and non-matchday income streams. Pay-day loans to operate are a desperate fallacy – not the sign of a well run business. If they fail, the club fails – not the individuals.

As far as Bobby Elstone is going, he is just a paid employee, there to earn a salary. As per the majority of employees anywhere in the world, he keeps his job and salary by doing as he is told; his bottom-dollar loyalty is to himself and retaining his own income – naïve in the extreme to believe otherwise.

I agree — it's certainly worked for that worldwide brand, Birmingham City.......

I support Everton because I absolutely love them, their history and everything they stand for. While I would like them to win some more league titles or trophies, it is not and has never been the be-all and end-all for myself.

Though I am totally depressed whenever we lose or even sometimes draw, I still love The Blues and – though I have said on many occasions "never again" – the love always returns the next day. I would rather the club slide slowly into oblivion rather than change their name or sell their soul like some clubs have done.

Many may think that I’m totally ridiculous in this thinking, but I love Everton for who and what they are and, if this ceased to be, I’d rather abandon all interest in football rather than switch allegiance to some wealthy club just because they have a better chance of winning something.

Here’s hoping Roberto is going to get us through that glass ceiling.

I do agree that, as a group, we can be frustratingly small-minded sometimes, an example being when DM departed in the summer and so many fans and former players were touting Stubbs, Weir, Neville et al, to be our next manager as they 'understood the club'. This is an example of the small club mentality that could hold us back, as it does not allow us to change a national and international perception of a club that, for years now, has been associated with direct and often (but not always) uninspiring football.

Like him or loathe him, the appointment of RM has gone a long way to change this public perception of us. I have heard many fans of other clubs refer to us, both privately and publicly as 'a very good team' – something that, even though intrinsically we're only slightly better off in the table, was never really said of us before. This goes a long way towards improving our 'brand'!

Commercially, most of us on here would totally agree that the way the club is run is often farcical and a cause for a great deal of concern. The way to rectify this, however, is NOT through a name change.

Hull's chairman has the belief (misguided in my opinion) that adding 'Tigers' to the name may attract investment. If you are promoting a similar level of change at Everton, well the Hull chairman claimed that it was the word 'City' that cheapened his brand globally, as there are many other teams with 'City' in their name. There are no other Evertons (in this country, my Chilean counterparts!), so we are commercially unique. Therefore, even if you like what he is trying to do, 'Liverpool City' would not be the answer.

Also, despite what you say, people have heard of us across the globe. We may like to denigrate our team these days and make out we are a small club purely because we are not what we once were, but we are still one of THE great clubs of English football and people know that. Twenty years ago, people in France, Italy, America, Mexico; in fact everywhere I've ever been have heard of us and that was before the major exposure the PL gets in the 21st century.

The problem is that even more people know Liverpool (because of their success, not their name!), so, if we were to incorporate 'Liverpool' into our name now, it would make us a laughing stock as we would clearly be hanging onto the coattails of our more famous rivals. We are not unknown, or small; unfortunately Liverpool are just more famous – don't downplay the successes of our club because they have had more!

The badge thing is important because, as was said above, our history is our US, and many new fans in America and the like are attracted because of our traditions. People like Deulofeu have commented on our impressive history too, so this furthers my point!

When I was in Germany recently, I noticed how, despite the fact the Bundesliga is a great league, shit nearly all of the club crests were mostly devoid of a traditional look. People globally look to the Premier League as a bastion of the traditions of football, where some of the world's oldest clubs ply their trade – that is one of the things they like about it – and we are one of those clubs, so we should use that to our advantage.

When City, Arsenal and the Shite have redesigned their crests recently, they have modernised but still maintained an air of tradition – therefore, a clever redesign. We, on the other hand, ended up with a badge that looks like it was designed by a child who had been inspired by the badges he'd seen in his stickerbook of the J-League! It was a cock-up that sold the club short. We were not opposed to redeveloping the badge, but it should look sleek and modern whilst still conveying heritage – that was the problem I think most of us had with it!!

In short, we can sort out our commercial activities by not having a club run by clowns, but rather by people who can make the most out of what they have to build something even better. That is what a good football manager must do and I believe we have one of those now; let's just sort the Board out before we try and rip the heart and soul out of our club, eh?!

I told a story on here about the ironic story of a girl who decided to support Liverpool because she loved the Beatles.... I couldn't tell you the number of times I've told football fans that Everton is in Liverpool. People don't care and, unless they are proper fans, don't notice. I'm not in the UK, as an add on to that.

Lyndon persuaded me we mustn't change and put together the best argument for me. I did propose a few seasons ago something even more abhorrent... A merger of Liverpool and Everton!

In 100 years from now, it would be remembered as a seminal moment in the city's history bringing together families and creating a world football power! Should all cities consolidate their teams at the same time... Yes, if they want to build a bigger power base. But that's not what our club and football should be about. But could you imagine!

Money men's verdict: there are too many teams in such a small catchment area or some such... Widnes will have to merge with bitterest rivals Warrington.

"Sod that for a game of solders" said Widnes and knowingly walked out like Capt Oates.

If it ever came to something similar, I hope the collective 'We' have half the guts they had...