Season › 2024-25 › Opinion › Talking Points Open message to Daily Mail reporter, Ian Herbert, about Graeme Sharp by David Hardman | 08/11/2024 43 Comments [Jump to last] For context, this post is in response to Ian Herbert’s follow-up aside from his earlier, much bigger article about the supposed “alienation” of Graeme Sharp that has already been reported and discussed in depth on this site: Graeme Sharp says he's been hurt and won't come back to Goodison Park Unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall at Mail Online so the entire passage can’t be quoted, but to summarise: Herbert states that he’d received e-mails from Everton fans saying that Graeme Sharp was involved in a club statement about the board of directors staying away from the ground over safety concerns (but with no mention of the “headlock” fairy tale). He then goes on to say: "I understand that the club’s security liaison team had not found any evidence to do him physical harm, though did have evidence of a plan to encircle directors in a confined space and voice complaints against the custodianship of the club. Would any security team deem that a 'safe' environment? What terribly frail evidence on which to ostracise a legend." Dear Ian Herbert, I refer to your column in the Daily Mail of 23 October 2024 in which you dismiss concerns by Everton fans about Graeme Sharp’s involvement in a statement around the safety of board members after intimidation by supporters, as “terribly frail evidence on which to ostracise a legend”. First of all, with respect, your write-up conveniently (and perhaps deliberately) fails to mention the most crucial aspect at the time of the statement question, in which this same board fed stories to the media, falsely claiming that a female member of the board was put in a “headlock” by a supporter at the previous home match, and had been spat at. There was no statement by Merseyside Police confirming this. On the contrary, when contacted, they advised that there had been no complaints or reports of any physical violence or intimidation against women at any recent match. As the old saying goes though, a lie travels halfway round the world before the truth comes out. This instance was a classic example, summed up when Ian Wright expressed his indignation about this alleged incident on Match of the Day, only to apologize on his podcast a few days later when he’d learned that this incident hadn’t actually happened. Unfortunately, his podcast only has a fraction of Match of the Day’s reach, meaning millions of TV viewers heard his reporting of this untrue incident and his subsequent condemnation of fans, while only a small niche audience heard the retraction and apology. Secondly, it’s telling that the advice that the board should stay away had, as you admitted yourself, come from the club’s own security team, and not the Police, something anyone would reasonably expect given the concerning nature of the accusations in the club’s statement. The department giving this advice answer to and take direction from the club’s hierarchy. In effect, the board told themselves to stay away. I’m aware that I’m making the assertion that the “headlock” and spitting stories are untrue, even though no-one can prove either way. On the balance of probabilities, though, that the board wouldn’t have reported such incidents to the Police, nor reported any supposed threats of violence consistent with their statement, seems utterly implausible. The bitter irony is that, if the board members released a statement to the effect that, given the hostility they faced at recent home matches, they didn’t feel comfortable attending for the foreseeable future until things cooled off, such an announcement would be indisputable and would have still mustered some sympathy for the under fire directors, and caused most neutral observers and the more moderate sections of their own support to question if the recent protests were going too far. However, such honesty wouldn’t have provoked the same media outrage against their own supporters, or the same sympathy with the press – something that still seems to be having the desired effect now, if the column I’m responding to is anything to go by! By claiming they’d been “told” to stay away because of “safety” concerns, and fabricating the story about the headlock and spitting incidents, they were able to have their cake and eat it by publicly demonising their critics without the inconvenience of having to actually prove their allegations or get the police involved. In the long run, though, this has only served to antagonize the Everton fanbase and turn even the most indifferent of fans against the board. Thirdly, in a similar vein, Graeme Sharp isn’t staying away from the ground because of safety concerns, which is what recent references to his exile have implied, or because he’s been “ostracised” as you claim. From what I’ve read, he’s voluntarily staying away as he feels hurt by how things turned out. While that’s obviously his decision and he’s perfectly entitled to choose this, it seems to have been distorted into further portraying Everton supporters as villains. Fourthly, this statement by the board did not happen in a vacuum. It was the last in a long line of boardroom incompetence that Sharp had helped oversee, and in Sharp’s case, he also left himself open to accusations of hypocrisy after numerous comments in his own autobiography in which he lambasted both his own Everton teammates and also Oldham’s then chairman Ian Stott for what he perceived as lack of ambition and/or misleading the club’s supporters, only for him to spend the next 15+ years defending to the hilt the most unsuccessful boardroom in Everton’s history. Arguably, he lost his “legend” status long before the unfortunate events of early 2023. I’ll happily provide a list of examples if requested. To sum up, though, there is a feeling that Graeme Sharp has spent more than two decades looking out for the best interests of Graeme Sharp rather than the club he supposedly loves. That’s his right and his prerogative. As is choosing to stay away from any Everton-related matches or events. Just as it’s the supporters’ right and prerogative to not roll out the welcome mat if he were to return or visit the new stadium. After all, even if you dismiss my fourth point, and only focus on the statement you referred to in your 23 October article, it could reasonably be considered enough on its own. To make such a baseless, potentially libellous and potentially dangerous assertion that one’s critics have committed an act of violence against women – for me, it’s indefensible. To dismiss it as “terribly frail evidence”, I can only assume you either weren’t aware of the full facts, in which case I hope this email has enlightened you; or such articles are written to provoke a reaction, in which case, more fool me for rising to it! Return to Talking Points index : Add your Comments » Reader Comments (43) 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 () Trevor Powell 1 Posted 08/11/2024 at 19:21:12 I have always doubted the headlock story on the grounds that,t in this day and age, not one 40,000 fans leaving Goodison, not one of them thought about filming it on a mobile phone! James Flynn 2 Posted 08/11/2024 at 21:08:18 Well-written and argued David.Thank you. Dave Abrahams 3 Posted 08/11/2024 at 21:19:22 David, let us know if/ when you get a reply off Ian Herbert. Lee Courtliff 4 Posted 09/11/2024 at 06:31:05 Good stuff, David, let's hope you get a reply. Derek Thomas 5 Posted 09/11/2024 at 06:58:07 Scribbler for news sheet that used to be used as toilet paper or to wrap up fish and chips, in; 'I back panda botherer' shocker. Barry Rathbone 6 Posted 09/11/2024 at 07:16:23 A case of "doth protesth too much" methinks.Look, the board were getting pelters and, in my opinion, "something" uncomfortable happened with Barret-Baxendale. The fact the police weren't involved is probably a case of "keep your heads down and don't antagonise them any more they're kicking off".We have as many wrong 'uns in the fanbase as any and I don't doubt board members got it big time from some. Recent reports suggest Sharp was visibly emotional when fans asked him to come back at a local event – hardly the reaction of someone flouncing off as inferred.We need to take it on the chin and stop pretending we are whiter than white – see Gordon and Mina. Si Cooper 7 Posted 09/11/2024 at 22:19:47 Barry (6), was your opening line simply to ‘introduce' your next paragraph?How would reporting something as nasty as a burly bloke putting a woman in a headlock have antagonised anyone? It's much more likely that it wasn't reported because the contact wasn't threatening in any way, unwelcome though it must have been. David Hardman 8 Posted 11/11/2024 at 10:56:49 Thanks for the comments. To his credit, I got a reply almost immediately: "If security team advise against attendance, club will advise against it. Must advise against it. The guy joined the board to help the club he's served. Give him a break."That was literally it – no pleasantries either side of the message. Probably because he gets so many messages from readers – you'd think the email would have a auto-signature or something though. Anyway, at least he sent a response. It was good of him to do that. James Hughes 9 Posted 11/11/2024 at 11:48:31 David, An excellent article and many thanks. The Journo failed to adress the key points, which are no complaint was filed and no police interaction/ intervention. The key for me was the board went silent. If they had had issued a statement about their absence it would have been fine. Fans would have reconsidered 'alleged' planned actions. Nothing was said and they hid behind security statements.Very disappointed, but not surprised, that you did not recieve a proper response Barry Rathbone 10 Posted 11/11/2024 at 11:58:51 Si @ 7I think cries of "why make this public?" would be where it would start.After that the floodgates open:"they're just trying to make us look bad""I bet it's not half as bad as they make out" "It was probably just a joke""bet she started it"etc Stan Grace 11 Posted 11/11/2024 at 12:57:22 Re Barry's post at @6: A case of "thou doth protest too much" methinks. – Opinion Look, the board were getting pelters – Opinion stated as fact – and, in my opinion, "something" uncomfortable happened with Barrett-Baxendale. – Opinion The fact the police weren't involved – an actual fact – is probably a case of "keep your heads down and don't antagonise them any more, they're kicking off". – OpinionWe have as many wrong 'uns in the fanbase as any and I don't doubt board members got it big time from some. — Opinion stated as fact.Recent reports suggest Sharp was visibly emotional when fans asked him to come back at a local event – hardly the reaction of someone flouncing off as inferred. — Opinion stated as fact.Not much of substance here. Brian Williams 12 Posted 11/11/2024 at 13:29:58 Denise Barrett-Baxendale was not put in a headlock. A person who'd "had a few" awkwardly put his arm around her shoulder/neck and asked something along the lines of When are you going to get us some new players then?"It wasn't an act of violence but it was wrong and I've no doubt it made Denise very uncomfortable, as it would anyone who was touched like this by a total stranger.The "headlock" term came to light when you know who dramatically referred to Barrett-Baxendale being "put in a bloody headlock" and it stuck. Stan Grace 13 Posted 11/11/2024 at 13:36:35 Brian, "an actual fact" was referring to Barry's previous point about no police involvement. Brian Williams 14 Posted 11/11/2024 at 13:41:33 Sorry, Stan, if I misread your post, mate. That's why I've edited it out. Stan Grace 15 Posted 11/11/2024 at 14:17:48 Saw that Brian. No problem. Need to sort out my text layout. Michael Kenrick Editorial Team 16 Posted 11/11/2024 at 14:38:19 Stan @15,I had a go at sorting out your text, using italics for quoted lines you were commenting on. Let me know if anything does not look right. Barry Rathbone 17 Posted 11/11/2024 at 14:38:26 Stan 11Yeh, it's opinion like almost every post on this site. But you seem to be stating that my post came with the words "this is fact'. Maybe you need to check your facts.Get in. Dave Lynch 18 Posted 11/11/2024 at 14:47:23 Barry, "the fact the police where not involved" was because it never happened.The whole ground is covered by CCTV plus a load of supporters with phone cameras picked up nothing.Do you not think the police would've viewed CCTV coverage? They would've "had to" under law as a "hate crime", for want of a better analogy ,had been committed.They found... fuck all, nada, Jack shit... because if they had they would've had to act upon it and refer it to the CPS.Stop making things up and look at the facts. Stan Grace 19 Posted 11/11/2024 at 23:06:13 Thanks for tidying up my original post, Michael.Barry, you twice made points which were stated as fact, not opinion, as in both cases there were no 'methinks' or 'probably', etc.It seems strange to me to counter facts stated by other posters with opinion. Brendan McLaughlin 20 Posted 12/11/2024 at 13:43:57 Stan #19Most posters make their points without qualifying every statement with words to the effect that they are merely posting their personal opinion.Barry's post is, however, littered with such caveats..."methinks", "in my opinion", "is probably a case of", "recent reports suggest"In my opinion you may be perhaps a tad unfair on Barry in this instance. Martin Mason 21 Posted 12/11/2024 at 15:00:43 Surely it is an opinion based forum and we shouldn't really need to put in caveats? What we should be sure we do is not make statements that aren't factual or at least have a high chance of being so or at least reasonable. Many posters struggle with the difference between their opinion and fact believing them to be the same thing. I think that we just have to accept that on an opinion based and diverse forum some of the posts will be opinion as fact but never mind. We don't have to accept the post or respond to it but can challenge it if we wish. I accept that "Prove it" is a bit provocative. I used to challenge posts that patently weren't fact or no basis whatsoever but straight from the myth factory but why bother, we live on myth? I once believed that it was very important that's all. Some would say that opinion is sacrosanct and equal in status to fact even when it isn't. I like the enlightenment version and hope that I would never state an opinion that I hadn't fact checked. Roy Johnstone 22 Posted 13/11/2024 at 08:39:08 Well said David. Totally spot on. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a reply from a journo prepared to print this unsubstantiated cobblers in the first place. Ernie Baywood 23 Posted 13/11/2024 at 09:37:13 I've no doubt that the headlock didn't happen. It didn't make any sense when it was first referenced, and then it didn't hold up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny afterwards... then to be never mentioned again. But I think this is one to let lie now. Sharp seems to have made his decision. He excuses it as being due to hurt, though in all probability it's somewhere between hurt and shame.I can separate Sharp the Striker from Sharp the Director. And I can move on from the despicable actions of that Board. If Sharp came back I'm sure he'd get a generally respectful reception (save for an angry minority). Not the adulation he might have been used to, but generally respectful.Basically what I'm saying is that the situation now is just his loss. He can deal with that, not us. Christine Foster 24 Posted 13/11/2024 at 09:57:41 Ernie, I think that's fair comment; Sharp as the player, I had utmost respect and admiration for. Sharp as the Director didn't come up to the mark, in my opinion, he chose his bedfellows and that's the top and bottom of it. If he feels he has been hard done by, then let him defend himself and tell it as he saw it. If not, do not throw in the "You don't know the half of it" as it's a cop-out of the first order. He has had plenty of time and opportunity to "tell it as it was" but hasn't. Hurt? Not as much as we have been by the actions of that board. Scott Hamilton 25 Posted 13/11/2024 at 10:34:50 Like all of us, I don't know exactly what happened, although my hunch is that ‘headlock-gate' was, at best, misadvised hyperbole created by senior board members. It segues quite neatly with some of the bollocks coming from Moshiri re: the signing of players etc.As for Sharp, I've met him twice since the alleged scenario. Once whilst walking my dog in North Wales and the other at an Everton fan event when he was still technically a director. From our chats, it's clear that he still absolutely loves the club but thinks the current owners are inept and created a scenario that badly tarnished his reputation. He was happy to talk openly about it for some time and all that came over to me was that I was talking to an Evertonian who had had enough of the current regime, albeit for slightly more personal reasons than most of us.I wouldn't go so far as to say that he was traumatised by the whole thing but it was clearly a dark period in his life. One thing he was emphatic about was what a force for good Barrett-Baxendale was. He said that letting her go was a huge mistake.I'm not sure many of us think fondly of the Moshiri era bu, from what I could glean, being a Blue on the inside was actually worse than being a normal fan. Hard to imagine, I know! Brendan McLaughlin 26 Posted 13/11/2024 at 14:24:32 "One thing he was emphatic about was what a force for good Barrett-Baxendale was. He said that letting her go was a huge mistake."Can't help but think something of a "coup de grâce" on these pages for a one-time Everton legend. Scott Hamilton 27 Posted 13/11/2024 at 14:42:03 Brendan, Sharpy reckoned that, without her, the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock would never have happened. Brian Williams 28 Posted 13/11/2024 at 15:09:41 I'm not sure many of us think fondly of the Moshiri era Not the era per se but the man himself, Moshiri, without whom we would not be moving into that wonderful, brand spanking new, state-of-the-art, Kopite-sickening stadium next season.For that, I'll always be grateful to him. Brendan McLaughlin 29 Posted 14/11/2024 at 18:08:09 Scott #27"Sharpy reckoned that, without her [Barrett-Baxendale], the new stadium at Bramley-Moore Dock would never have happened."Brian #28"Moshiri, without whom we would not be moving into that wonderful, brand spanking new, state-of-the-art, Kopite-sickening stadium next season."Obviously these statements aren't mutually exclusive but, if one or both are true, who do we thank for bringing either or both of these individuals and the new stadium to our club? Dave Abrahams 30 Posted 14/11/2024 at 18:43:18 Brendan (29), One of those two put plenty of money into the club and the other took plenty out – that might help you, Brendan. Dave Abrahams 31 Posted 14/11/2024 at 18:47:31 The person who brought both of them into the club put nothing in and took about £40M out and sacked one of them – although she was well rewarded for being thrown under the bus. Brendan McLaughlin 32 Posted 14/11/2024 at 18:55:10 True, Dave #30.Doesn't really invalidate either Scott's or Brian's posts though.(Hope you & June are keeping well.) Andy Riley 33 Posted 14/11/2024 at 19:15:58 Did Graeme Sharp sign some sort of confidentiality agreement before he left? If so, that may prevent him explaining things further.What is more concerning to me is that Barrett-Baxendale and Ingles never appeared at the Premier League tribunal for whatever reason and that has never been explained properly.Is there any investigative journalist interested in that? Brendan McLaughlin 34 Posted 14/11/2024 at 19:29:06 Andy #33,Are you suggesting that, without a confidentiality agreement, Graeme would have elaborated to Scott #27 exactly how much of a blinder Barrett-Baxendale played in respect of the new stadium?In respect of Barrett-Baxendale and Ingles... I would be surprised if the Premier League didn't have the right to call whatever witnesses they wanted to the tribunal. That neither appeared is probably most likely explained by the fact that they had nothing significant to add on the day. Dave Abrahams 35 Posted 14/11/2024 at 19:37:39 Brendan ( 32), Yes, being honest. Although I have aired my opposition to Sharp over this incident, I honestly believe he would be welcomed back by the majority of Everton fans if he came to one of the games at Goodison. I would even ignore him personally as a token of goodwill!Me and June are doing fine and I hope the same for yourself and Breige, with both of you getting closer to welcoming your new grandchild. Best wishes. ps: Don't show this to Breige if I've spelt her name wrong mixing the i and e up!! Andy Riley 36 Posted 14/11/2024 at 19:55:30 Brendan, I think Graeme may be unwilling to speak about anything owing to any confidentiality agreement. That could also explain why he's not keen to return to Goodison and engage freely with supporters, many of whom are possibly understanding of his position?In respect of Barrett-Baxendale and Ingles, they as CEO and Finance Director were surely central to the events considered by the Premier League's independent commission? Not sure if either side had the power to compel an unwilling witness to attend but I found it all a bit odd at the time that there was no press interest or comment in their non-attendance? Brendan McLaughlin 37 Posted 14/11/2024 at 20:02:39 Ha ha Dave #35"Breige"...spot on, Dave. The "i before e" thing doesn't apply to Irish names.Breige says "God Bless" & she's forgiven you for making her miss Mass that day. The spelling of her name doesn't really register... she is so much looking forward to her grand daughter... she wouldn't mind however you spelt it.Fucking Breige I can even get away with Barry Rathbone 38 Posted 14/11/2024 at 20:05:53 Dave 18I gave a possible answer as to why it wasn't pursued in my original post and it has nothing to do with what was or wasn't on cctv. Tae a deep breath and have a read. Brendan McLaughlin 39 Posted 14/11/2024 at 20:21:16 Andy mate #36So Sharpe has signed a confidentiality agreement and then speaks pretty openly with a random...sorry Scott...supporter.On the tribunal thing. In law there's a a concept called "disclosure" whereby both sides declare their evidence and only the "disputed" evidence is argued over and relevant witnesses called.Simply think they had nothing significant to add...hence no attendance nor press interest. Dave Abrahams 40 Posted 15/11/2024 at 09:50:16 Brendan (37), Breige missing mass was all down to June, a Protestant leading a lovely Catholic lady astray, it was worth it because of the lovely afternoon we spent together.I hope your grand daughter brings you both as much pleasure as our great grandson brings to all the family with Sonny already being taught to sing “ Everton, Everton Ev. er. ton “ by his daft dad and grandad, I'm concentrating with his 1 2 3's and his a b c's, the poor baby doesn't know if he's coming or going but his big smile is worth the effort! Brendan McLaughlin 41 Posted 16/11/2024 at 23:29:48 Dave #40If I'm honest... I think he'll be chanting "Ev.. er..ton" before he counts to four.Enjoy. Danny O'Neill 42 Posted 17/11/2024 at 07:53:44 I think with this one, there are a number of points.The initial feeling of abandonment by the board, if we could call it that.The disappointment in Sharp not speaking out but, as mentioned, he was probably tied into an NDA. I understand that. It will be time-barred and, one day, he will be able to speak his mind.Although disappointed with him at the time, I hope he is able to walk on the pitch at Goodison for the final day and the supporters remember the player who gave us memorable moments. Dave Abrahams 43 Posted 17/11/2024 at 08:42:52 Brendan (41)Yes I wouldnt bet against that Brendan with his dad and grandad constantly down his ear! 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. How to get rid of these ads and support TW © ToffeeWeb