Chris Matheson MP being gagged by Elstone, EFC shareholders meeting moved to the Winslow pub

[dave abrahams]

That should have read most put their hands up to vote for him.

 

[nil satis]

The simple answer to that is that it's not ethical and from 2018/19 the entire business of shadow directors is being outlawed by the Premier League. Rules are in place to protect the game, and clubs, from being abused by people of poor character. Green's character has been of major national debate in the last 12 months due to the collapse of BHS. There have been calls for him to be stripped of his knighthood. Some of us care a great deal about who Everton associate with and do not want the club associated with such a person. Everton denied Green involvement but the facts are Moyes and Wyness were summoned to BHS Headquarters to discuss transfer targets and Wyness was later fired on board Green's yacht. Moyes also signed Fellaini on late 2008 transfer deadline day via flying to Liege and back on Green's private jet. The reasons for all of this have never been explained, beyond 'he's a very good friend of Bill's'. He was instrumental in stopping Kenwright selling to Paul Gregg in 2004: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/2891553/Green-comes-to-the-rescue-of-Evertons-chairman.html and helped to 'find' Robert Earl to 'save the day'.

I agree his huge boat and the BHS pension fund have shown him for what he is, but wasn't this well after Moyes? I would imagine people willing to invest in Everton at the time were pretty thin on the ground. I just think Kenwright did brilliantly to get us from Johnson to Moshiri.

 

[DerbyshireAndHarper]

I agree his huge boat and the BHS pension fund have shown him for what he is, but wasn't this well after Moyes? I would imagine people willing to invest in Everton at the time were pretty thin on the ground. I just think Kenwright did brilliantly to get us from Johnson to Moshiri.

No, Green's involvement was said to be throughout Moyes 11 year managerial reign, beginning in 2004. Not sure how you're surmising that Green's involvement was 'well after Moyes'.

 

[Logans run]

Before you start a great moral crusade on the MPs behalf remember this.
1 He made unsubstantiated claims
2 He did them in Parliament where these claims cannot be challenged in a civil or criminal court
3 He undermined and brought the club into disrepute by making claims he will not make in public
If he has evidence to support his claims he should produce it if he as no evidence he should be barred from the ground

 

[nil satis]

No, Green's involvement was said to be throughout Moyes 11 year managerial reign, beginning in 2004. Not sure how you're surmising that Green's involvement was 'well after Moyes'.

No what I am saying is the BHS scandal was in the last couple of years.

 

[DerbyshireAndHarper]

Before you start a great moral crusade on the MPs behalf remember this.
1 He made unsubstantiated claims
2 He did them in Parliament where these claims cannot be challenged in a civil or criminal court
3 He undermined and brought the club into disrepute by making claims he will not make in public
If he has evidence to support his claims he should produce it if he as no evidence he should be barred from the ground

Points 1 and 2 - fine.

With respect, point 3 is a load of rubbish. The club 'undermines itself' by refusing to answer basic questions regarding Green's alleged involvement, not least the fact that there were many examples of club business being conducted on his property and his advice being sought. We can all take Kenwright's words at face value, that 'Philip is a good friend of mine/Everton Football Club', or we can all look a little deeper and question this. The EFCSA questioned it, the club refused to answer the questions. If you refuse to answer questions, suspicion and unrest continues.

His actual comments are contained in this post here: https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/...-to-the-winslow-pub.94847/page-7#post-5279306 and he made two very interesting comments - never addressed or answered by the club - that Paul Gregg claims that even though Robert Earl acquired his shares, it was Philip Green that paid for them, and that Green had PWC conduct an audit of the club's finances. Why was someone - supposedly with no interest (financially or otherwise) - so heavily involved in club business? There are too many unanswered questions for this to be swept under the carpet and certainly no grounds for claiming Matheson brought the club into disrepute.

Also, as a paying customer, the club has no right to 'bar him from the ground' for something he queried. Look at the quote of exactly what he said in that link above. There is nothing said at all there that should result in his exclusion from the ground - nor has he actually been excluded. The club simply said to EFCSA that if they went ahead with their meeting with him speaking at it, that it couldn't take place at the ground. This is a textbook example of Elstone not liking what someone suggested/said and getting their own back. It's petty, it looks bad on the club and makes it look like they have something to hide. Matheson is not at fault here. If he's said something that isn't true, the club should do all they can to prove he is incorrect, by answered the first 7 of the 41 questions for starters.

 

[Logans run]

Points 1 and 2 - fine.

With respect, point 3 is a load of rubbish. The club 'undermines itself' by refusing to answer basic questions regarding Green's alleged involvement, not least the fact that there were many examples of club business being conducted on his property and his advice being sought. We can all take Kenwright's words at face value, that 'Philip is a good friend of mine/Everton Football Club', or we can all look a little deeper and question this. The EFCSA questioned it, the club refused to answer the questions. If you refuse to answer questions, suspicion and unrest continues.

His actual comments are contained in this post here: https://www.grandoldteam.com/forum/...-to-the-winslow-pub.94847/page-7#post-5279306 and he made two very interesting comments - never addressed or answered by the club - that Paul Gregg claims that even though Robert Earl acquired his shares, it was Philip Green that paid for them, and that Green had PWC conduct an audit of the club's finances. Why was someone - supposedly with no interest (financially or otherwise) - so heavily involved in club business? There are too many unanswered questions for this to be swept under the carpet and certainly no grounds for claiming Matheson brought the club into disrepute.

Also, as a paying customer, the club has no right to 'bar him from the ground' for something he queried. Look at the quote of exactly what he said in that link above. There is nothing said at all there that should result in his exclusion from the ground - nor has he actually been excluded. The club simply said to EFCSA that if they went ahead with their meeting with him speaking at it, that it couldn't take place at the ground. This is a textbook example of Elstone not liking what someone suggested/said and getting their own back. It's petty, it looks bad on the club and makes it look like they have something to hide. Matheson is not at fault here. If he's said something that isn't true, the club should do all they can to prove he is incorrect, by answered the first 7 of the 41 questions for starters.

I have supported Everton probably longer than anyone on this thread, and let me assure you there has been some controversy over ownership over the whole of that time, and that will continue.
However, I support Everton and only Everton, unlike yourself I along with the vast majority, do not take every opportunity to have a pop at Everton.
If you are not happy with the club then move on to another club.
Now back to the MP, no politician should use his position, in Parliamentary privilege to draw into disrepute Everton, I would ban him tomorrow and anyone else who makes unsubstantiated claims against the club.
Now you seem to be the Barack room lawyer, who wants to have a go at Everton on an episode that may or may not have happened, and in any event is not relevant to the new owner, and is not relevant to Everton, by continuing in the futile attempt to to damage Kenwright and co you only succeed in bringing Everton into disrepute.

 

[DerbyshireAndHarper]

I have supported Everton probably longer than anyone on this thread, and let me assure you there has been some controversy over ownership over the whole of that time, and that will continue.
However, I support Everton and only Everton, unlike yourself I along with the vast majority, do not take every opportunity to have a pop at Everton.
If you are not happy with the club then move on to another club.
Now back to the MP, no politician should use his position, in Parliamentary privilege to draw into disrepute Everton, I would ban him tomorrow and anyone else who makes unsubstantiated claims against the club.
Now you seem to be the Barack room lawyer, who wants to have a go at Everton on an episode that may or may not have happened, and in any event is not relevant to the new owner, and is not relevant to Everton, by continuing in the futile attempt to to damage Kenwright and co you only succeed in bringing Everton into disrepute.

Excuse me, but the length of your support of Everton does not make you a better supporter of Everton than me or anyone else on this forum. That's a supremely arrogant attitude that you have there. For the record, I've been a match-going supporter for 35 years, not that this is relevant in any way or alters whether or not I can hold a view on this subject. I resent being told that I should 'support another club' simply because I am concerned regarding how the club I love has and is being run.

I do not 'take any opportunity to have a pop at Everton'. If anything I've taken flak from people on this forum calling me an apologist for the club! I'm very happy with our new largest shareholder and our manager, thank you very much.

It's a good job you do not run the club, because there are no legal grounds to 'ban him tomorrow', for simply questioning a murky situation THAT THE CLUB HAS CREATED.

I'm not a 'barack room lawyer', simply a fan that does not like liars or cover ups or people who do not answer basic, honest questions. Your love of Bill Kenwright is quite clear in your very defensive post - to that I would say that Mr Kenwright was and is accountable to the clubs fans to be honest and fully explain Philip Green's involvement in the club. His failure to do so will forever tarnish his reputation regarding Everton as far as I and many others are concerned.

We are trying to move on as a club but relics of the past hold us back at times with behaviour like Elstone's. That brings the club 'into disrepute' and damages our reputation far more than any concerned fans asking questions about alleged wrong doing at the club. Perhaps you should respect your fellow supporters concerns instead of insulting them for it.

 

[Woolly Blue]

We are trying to move on as a club but relics of the past hold us back at times with behaviour like Elstone's

To be fair, you could equally say the same about Matheson and his comments about Green, which hardly fit in with the "trying to move on as a club" idea.

Elstone's a tit, we all know that. I know next to nothing about Matheson, but from what I've read wrt his words on Everton and Green, then I'm inclined to think he's a bit of a tit as well.

 

[DerbyshireAndHarper]

To be fair, you could equally say the same about Matheson and his comments about Green, which hardly fit in with the "trying to move on as a club" idea.

Elstone's a tit, we all know that. I know next to nothing about Matheson, but from what I've read wrt his words on Everton and Green, then I'm inclined to think he's a bit of a tit as well.

In what way is Matheson 'a tit'?

Let's put this into context. Matheson isn't trying to bring the Green topic back to the fore. 5 months ago, there was a Parliamentary discussion regarding football governance and the issue of shadow directorships came up. Literally all Matheson said was the following:

"Until March 2016, Robert Earl was a director of Everton - and I should say I am a season ticket holder at Everton - declared 23% of the ownership at Everton through BCR Sports, registered in the British Virgin Islands. However, a previous director and, in fact, the previous owner of those shares, Paul Gregg, says he wasn't paid for those shares that were transferred to Robert Earl , by Robert Earl or even by BCR Sports ... by Sir Phillip Green who was not registered as a director at Everton. And I understand that Sir Philip Green had something of a role of shadow director at Everton, including having PWC conduct an audit of the club and summoning the chief executive and the team manager to BHS headquarters to discuss transfer budgets. If someone has paid for some share through someone else and through an entity in the British Virgin Islands, but isn't a director, would that a problem?" - question asked to Greg Clarke, chairman of the FA.

Clarke replied that he wasn't aware of BCR Sports or Vibrac, and the discussion moved on.

In what way did anything Matheson say there make him 'a tit'?

The above was and is Matheson's only public comments on Green and Everton, 5 months ago. It had not been in the news since then, the topic had died down. For whatever reason - and it seems those comments from 5 months ago were the reason - Robert Elstone did not want Matheson to speak on club property at the Everton Shareholders Association.

I think it's extremely unfair to lay any blame at Matheson's feet and call him any names. He made some very valid points in his comments. Questions that should be answered. Elstone not approving of the man speaking at the Shareholders meeting - when there was literally no guarantee he was even going to mention Green and Everton in that setting - is the main crux of the matter here.

 

[Woolly Blue]

We are trying to move on as a club but relics of the past hold us back at times

He made some very valid points in his comments. Questions that should be answered.

Make your mind up mate, do you want to move on or do you want to dig up the past ?

I'm calling a Matheson a tit because, if he seriously thinks dragging up the "Was Green acting as a shadow director" thing up in parliament was going to go unnoticed by the board, both past and present, then he must be a bit dim, and it shouldn't have been a surprise to him that he wouldn't be welcomed into Goodison with open arms to speak on a similar subject which would almost inevitably move onto what he said in Parliament.

fwiw - I think, if Green was acting as a shadow director ( and for all I know, he may well have been ), then it'll do no good to keep dragging it back up. On the off chance that Matheson has any proof, or evidence, then, if it turned out to be proven, one or all of the following might happen :-

• Green might be asked a few awkward questions, which, given the fairly objectionable character he is, he probably couldn't give two hoots about and
• Kenwright, Woods and Earl would be dragged over the coals, probably Elstone too

The upshot of that would be the authorities might deal with the actions retrospectively, and punish not only the people involved, but the club as well. I can understand peoples moral angle, and wanting to know exactly what ( if anything ) happened with Green which broke the rules, but there are likely consequences to following that path.

 

[Walken]

I have supported Everton probably longer than anyone on this thread, and let me assure you there has been some controversy over ownership over the whole of that time, and that will continue.
However, I support Everton and only Everton, unlike yourself I along with the vast majority, do not take every opportunity to have a pop at Everton.
If you are not happy with the club then move on to another club.
Now back to the MP, no politician should use his position, in Parliamentary privilege to draw into disrepute Everton, I would ban him tomorrow and anyone else who makes unsubstantiated claims against the club.
Now you seem to be the Barack room lawyer, who wants to have a go at Everton on an episode that may or may not have happened, and in any event is not relevant to the new owner, and is not relevant to Everton, by continuing in the futile attempt to to damage Kenwright and co you only succeed in bringing Everton into disrepute.

ALL HAIL THE SUPER BLUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[1966efc]

On Chris M, he's a schmoozer - oily - as sincere as any other politician.

I think this thread should have the title, Titgate.But only because it would make me smile.

 

[DerbyshireAndHarper]

Make your mind up mate, do you want to move on or do you want to dig up the past ?

I'm calling a Matheson a tit because, if he seriously thinks dragging up the "Was Green acting as a shadow director" thing up in parliament was going to go unnoticed by the board, both past and present, then he must be a bit dim, and it shouldn't have been a surprise to him that he wouldn't be welcomed into Goodison with open arms to speak on a similar subject which would almost inevitably move onto what he said in Parliament.

fwiw - I think, if Green was acting as a shadow director ( and for all I know, he may well have been ), then it'll do no good to keep dragging it back up. On the off chance that Matheson has any proof, or evidence, then, if it turned out to be proven, one or all of the following might happen :-

• Green might be asked a few awkward questions, which, given the fairly objectionable character he is, he probably couldn't give two hoots about and
• Kenwright, Woods and Earl would be dragged over the coals, probably Elstone too

The upshot of that would be the authorities might deal with the actions retrospectively, and punish not only the people involved, but the club as well. I can understand peoples moral angle, and wanting to know exactly what ( if anything ) happened with Green which broke the rules, but there are likely consequences to following that path.

Matheson's exact words were 'I understand Green was a shadow director' and gave his reasons for understanding this. You want proof? Don't we all! Well, apparently some of us do. The proof would be in the answers that the club was asked to provide and refused to do so. Did Philip Green order PWC to audit the club accounts? I don't know Elstone won't tell us. Why was club business conducted on Green's property? I don't know, Elstone won't tell us. Did Green sit in on board meetings? Was Robert Earl a proxy for Green? Why did Green pay Gregg for his shares and not Earl? We don't know, again, plus the club won't tell us. People need to separate 'accusations' with 'valid questioning'.

Should Matheson have so fragrantly mentioned that he 'understood Green was as shadow director'? Perhaps not, perhaps that was unwise, knowing the stir it would create. However, that does not excuse Elstone putting pressure on an external group - the Shareholders Association - from allowing someone to speak at their meeting. If anything, the shareholders themselves share the same views as Matheson, given the 41 questions they submitted that weren't answered.

Regarding this 'Moving on' thing - that was in respect to the Club being more open and transparent with the fans. By not allowing someone to speak due to something they said 5 months ago about something in the past is an example of THE CLUB not moving on.

The fans have moved on. There's less complaining about the Everton board under Moshiri than there was previously. That is undeniable I think.

I don't like the attitude of 'We mustn't talk about this as its a hornets nest and we don't want any wrong doing uncovered as it might come back to bite us'. If the club wasn't so secretive and some of the same people from the Kenwright era weren't still in positions of key power pulling the strings (like Elstone), then there would be an argument for letting sleeping dogs lie. Unfortunately, certain people's feet are still underneath the sleeping dog, and disturbing the dog is unavoidable at times!

 

[Woolly Blue]

Matheson's exact words were 'I understand Green was a shadow director' and gave his reasons for understanding this. You want proof? Don't we all! Well, apparently some of us do. The proof would be in the answers that the club was asked to provide and refused to do so. Did Philip Green order PWC to audit the club accounts? I don't know Elstone won't tell us. Why was club business conducted on Green's property? I don't know, Elstone won't tell us. Did Green sit in on board meetings? Was Robert Earl a proxy for Green? Why did Green pay Gregg for his shares and not Earl? We don't know, again, plus the club won't tell us. People need to separate 'accusations' with 'valid questioning'.

Should Matheson have so fragrantly mentioned that he 'understood Green was as shadow director'? Perhaps not, perhaps that was unwise, knowing the stir it would create. However, that does not excuse Elstone putting pressure on an external group - the Shareholders Association - from allowing someone to speak at their meeting. If anything, the shareholders themselves share the same views as Matheson, given the 41 questions they submitted that weren't answered.

Regarding this 'Moving on' thing - that was in respect to the Club being more open and transparent with the fans. By not allowing someone to speak due to something they said 5 months ago about something in the past is an example of THE CLUB not moving on.

The fans have moved on. There's less complaining about the Everton board under Moshiri than there was previously. That is undeniable I think.

I don't like the attitude of 'We mustn't talk about this as its a hornets nest and we don't want any wrong doing uncovered as it might come back to bite us'. If the club wasn't so secretive and some of the same people from the Kenwright era weren't still in positions of key power pulling the strings (like Elstone), then there would be an argument for letting sleeping dogs lie. Unfortunately, certain people's feet are still underneath the sleeping dog, and disturbing the dog is unavoidable at times!

Two or three years I'd have agreed with everything you say.

But, you appear from your posts in this and other threads to be a fairly sensible and intelligent person so think it through.

If Green wasn't pulling the strings and acting as a shadow director, then nothing the club do or say will convince people of that, they'd be wasting their breath.

If he was acting as a shadow director, then it's hard to see a scenario where Moshiri's due diligence didn't unearth it, so, unless he was open with the authorities about what he might have found, then he'd be hiding it too.

I don't know, and can only guess at what the reality of Green's involvement is, but I happen to believe Moshiri will be good for our club so I'm happy to take his due diligence findings on trust. Obviously if I'm wrong about him being good for the club then it'd be be better to ferret about, both privately and publicly to see if the club broke the rules.

My gut reaction about Matheson is he knows no more about the situation than he's read on the internet and has had a few conversations with people who think they know something but don't have proof. He's probably well meaning but I'd guess there was a certain amount of egotism involved in mentioning it in parliament, but I am a bit of an old cynic, especially when it comes to politicians who almost all love the sound of their own voice.