Open message to Daily Mail reporter, Ian Herbert, about Graeme Sharp

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

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 ()

There are no responses so far to this article. Be the first to offer a comment using the form below.

---

How to get rid of these ads and support TW

---