Rousing defence of Kenwrong

[chicoazul]

You're always criticising people for making assumptions & when I ask you a straightforward question about the ballot you advise me to make an assumption. If you don't know the answer just say so, but perhaps your responses shouldn't then be based upon your assumptions either.

You're completely misinterpreting my comments, I have not attempted to make any assumptions about those who haven't voted. I've simply stated that my view of the results was & is that a positive response of less than 50% of those asked doesn't seem all that positive to me. You seem desperate to disagree with something I'm not saying, which really is silly.

As I said, at the time my vote would probably have been a "yes" - so I'm not too sure of your logic there. Although, I've always felt it's fine for the Board to sound out the fans opinions but the board are supposed to be running the business & they should be deciding what's best for the club, even if it isn't immediately popular.

I'm not "coming out with plenty of season ticket holders are holier-than-thou" - you are dismissing the views of non-season ticket holders as though they are second class Evertonians.
Obviously it was the clubs choice, but I wouldn't have thought including members of official supporters clubs in the electorate would have been too complex, pretty obvious to me.

DK was a bad option - that's why less than half of those asked voted for it.

As explained, many times previously.

Night Dennis, and sorry y'all.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

shakes head in disbelief*

What was the options? Move to Kirkby/Dont move to Kirkby.

Would it be safe to assume the ballot reflected those options?

Wait, was there other options?

I'm paranoid about assumptions now chico, I know they'll be thrown in my face in some totally unrelated thread 3 months from now.
I'd check on the KEIOC site but some people might consider them an unreliable source of information.

 

[DENNIS STEVENS]

As explained, many times previously.

Night Dennis, and sorry y'all.

You surprise me chico, leaping to unsubstantiated assumptions.

I'll really try & make this as simple as possible because you're obviously struggling with it :

"DK was a bad option - that's why less than half of those asked voted for it."

In my opinion, a more attractive proposal would have gained more support - that doesn't mean I'm making any assumptions about the non-voters & their reasons for not voting, it simply means that a different & better proposal would have been more popular & gained more support. The voting pattern would have been different.

EDIT: Actually, as this is my last post on the matter I'll give you a ridiculous for instance : imagine DK exactly as proposed, but including a retractible roof. Some would consider it an improvement others would feel it detrimental & some wouldn't be arsed either way. From the positons people took at the time of the vote there would be some adjustment as some individuals in each group then would have been in a different group had that been a factor. In other words the voting pattern would be different, perhaps only slightly in that instance. One can't look back retrospectively & assume that only some of those who became non-voters might not have done so & that nothing else would differ - every individual would be considering a slightly different proposal.

 

[Goat]

So thats that then, everybody decided Kenwrong is evil.

 

[teppic]

no way. i want a scooby doo ending.

and pulling off davek's mask it's.... bill kenwright. damn i never saw that one coming.

 

[Neiler]

Stirling work in this thread Mr Azul!

Sir William of Kenwright - nailed on!

 

[davek]

Stirling work in this thread Mr Azul!

Sir William of Kenwright - nailed on!

Worst wind up of all time.

Raus Kenwrong!

 

[Whitebootman]

no way. i want a scooby doo ending.

and pulling off davek's mask it's.... bill kenwright. damn i never saw that one coming.

Damm that pesky kid.

 

[gordonjblair]

Jesus, I'm not around for a couple of days, and look what happens.

For the record, the wording of the vote was:
"Are you in favour of relocating Everton Football Club to Kirkby?"
with a yes or no option.

Of the 36,000 slips issued, 26,751 were returned, 15,855 of those being a 'Yes'.
In other words, 59% of those who returned their slips, 44% of those who were issued a slip, voted 'yes' to a "virtually free, world class, state of the art Stadium with the best transport links in the country", as it was being pitched at the time.

To put this in perspective, when the voting took place for Kings Dock the figures were as follows:

Of the 22,000 slips issued, 17,398 were returned, 15,049 of those being a 'Yes'. 86.5% of those who returned their slips, 68% of those who were issued a slip voted yes.

I think this is where Dennis was coming from when he pointed out that the vote was a little less than overwhelming, particularly when you take into account the massive PR effort from the club, and the assertions that have since proven erroneous.

The basic facts;

Kenwright saves the club from the peril of Peter Johnson
Kenwright appoints David Moyes - when fans were screaming for Andy Gray....
Kenwright gives the fans what they want and what they voted for, and builds a stadium.
Next, Kenwright doesn't bow to pressure and secures good investment.

Am guessing the above was tongue in cheek,
as Bill was on Johnson's board,
was handed Davey by Walter as a parting shot,
isn't giving fans the world class, state of the art, virtually free... blah blah Stadium they voted for,
and has told the Public Enquiry that none of his or his fellow director's shares are for sale.

I've read an awful lot in the past dozen pages about anti Board, anti DK posters running on assertion and rhetoric, but that's a little unfair. People are bound to get a little emotive when their worst fears are realised drip by drip, for example:

the entire transport plan debacle, and the thousands of bicycles required.
the 7 figure contribution from the club to the policing of the traffic management and parking enforcement.
the 100 free uses per year of the conferencing facility for the council.
the threatened capacity reduction to 40,000 when the transport share isn't met.

None of the above issues are assertion, conjecture or rhetoric, they are facts (pardon the Rafael) released by the club or KMBC at or since the enquiry, but if brought up over the last day or so, I dare say some would have attempted to dismiss them as such.

Let's get one thing straight though. If the Stadium gets passed, I want it to succeed; I want the Board to do well (Bill included) and be able to support DM in the way that he deserves. I'm just worried that, based on current evidence, the Stadium would be far from an unqualified success, a compromise too far, a short term solution that we would be saddled with for the long term. The Board, Stadium and not having much cash aside, I don't think are doing too much wrong, but Ian Ross gets on my nerves.

That is all.

 

[Blue Lou]

Apparently Cabinet Report 21 June 2006: Para 4.1 says that KMBC want to establish a company that owns and manages the stadium, they will own a third of it. They'd receive a third of all the income generated from the operation of any new stadium.

Just thought I'd stir it a bit

 

[Axlswhk]

Here we go again. 2nd half or extra time?

 

[gordonjblair]

Apparently Cabinet Report 21 June 2006: Para 4.1 says that KMBC want to establish a company that owns and manages the stadium, they will own a third of it. They'd receive a third of all the income generated from the operation of any new stadium.

Just thought I'd stir it a bit

BOO... I think this was one of the funding options that got kiboshed back in the day, you bad stirrer

 

[Goat]

Jesus, I'm not around for a couple of days, and look what happens.

For the record, the wording of the vote was:
"Are you in favour of relocating Everton Football Club to Kirkby?"
with a yes or no option.

Of the 36,000 slips issued, 26,751 were returned, 15,855 of those being a 'Yes'.
In other words, 59% of those who returned their slips, 44% of those who were issued a slip, voted 'yes' to a "virtually free, world class, state of the art Stadium with the best transport links in the country", as it was being pitched at the time.

To put this in perspective, when the voting took place for Kings Dock the figures were as follows:

Of the 22,000 slips issued, 17,398 were returned, 15,049 of those being a 'Yes'. 86.5% of those who returned their slips, 68% of those who were issued a slip voted yes.

I think this is where Dennis was coming from when he pointed out that the vote was a little less than overwhelming, particularly when you take into account the massive PR effort from the club, and the assertions that have since proven erroneous.



Am guessing the above was tongue in cheek,
as Bill was on Johnson's board,
was handed Davey by Walter as a parting shot,
isn't giving fans the world class, state of the art, virtually free... blah blah Stadium they voted for,
and has told the Public Enquiry that none of his or his fellow director's shares are for sale.

I've read an awful lot in the past dozen pages about anti Board, anti DK posters running on assertion and rhetoric, but that's a little unfair. People are bound to get a little emotive when their worst fears are realised drip by drip, for example:

the entire transport plan debacle, and the thousands of bicycles required.
the 7 figure contribution from the club to the policing of the traffic management and parking enforcement.
the 100 free uses per year of the conferencing facility for the council.
the threatened capacity reduction to 40,000 when the transport share isn't met.

None of the above issues are assertion, conjecture or rhetoric, they are facts (pardon the Rafael) released by the club or KMBC at or since the enquiry, but if brought up over the last day or so, I dare say some would have attempted to dismiss them as such.

Let's get one thing straight though. If the Stadium gets passed, I want it to succeed; I want the Board to do well (Bill included) and be able to support DM in the way that he deserves. I'm just worried that, based on current evidence, the Stadium would be far from an unqualified success, a compromise too far, a short term solution that we would be saddled with for the long term. The Board, Stadium and not having much cash aside, I don't think are doing too much wrong, but Ian Ross gets on my nerves.

That is all.

I think thats the winner, DEEP, DEEP into injury time and it didnt even touch his arm.

GJB hits a wonderful shot.

 

[davek]

Liverpool Echo.co.uk - Lifestyles - Features - Bill Kenwright’s Christmas gift to Liverpool, as Scrooge The Musical arrives in the city

Another good news story for Bill. He gives loads to charity but doesn't like people knowing. Apparently.

 

[Neiler]

Liverpool Echo.co.uk - Lifestyles - Features - Bill Kenwright’s Christmas gift to Liverpool, as Scrooge The Musical arrives in the city

Another good news story for Bill. He gives loads to charity but doesn't like people knowing. Apparently.

Well in Sir William - truly a great blue.