Kirkby Set Back Will Cost Everton - Cannon

[CaptainFerguson10]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/08/09/tom-cannon-everton-will-suffer-over-kirkby-stadium-setback-100252-21501206/

 

It's very interesting to read, especially when professor Cannon said 'how long will Moyes be patient for regarding funds'? Very interesting indeed.

[Bill]

Kirkby-born Prof Cannon said: "Everton’s revenue stream will be down by £10m a year just in gate revenues by staying at Goodison.

"Then there are all the other bits of income from a new stadium like conferences to pop concerts which is probably another £5m"

 

 

IMO Thats a load of cobblers, we would struggle to raise the average attendance up to 40.000 per game, which would bring only another £3 million into the purse.

And who the hell is going to book concerts and conferences in the middle of nowhere, when there's much better venues in the city centre. Its all bollox imo.

[StevO]

maybe tesco will use it? But isnt the kbc part of the deal? They get the other events?

[tzp7zy]

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/liverpool-news/local-news/2008/08/09/tom-cannon-everton-will-suffer-over-kirkby-stadium-setback-100252-21501206/

 

It's very interesting to read, especially when professor Cannon said 'how long will Moyes be patient for regarding funds'? Very interesting indeed.

It might be more interesting if the article wasn't more than a year old!!

[Louis]

Prof Tom Cannon was completely discredited on Toffeeweb.

 

http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/08-09/comment/fan/article.asp?submissionID=8524 - Same date as the article above funnily enough.

 

This is a response from Greg Murphy:

 

Professor Cannon,

 

You end your post by stating:

 

“We are clearly in a new situation — one in which I for one hope is judged on the basis of the full truth and not half truths.”

 

It’s very hard to respect that when, on the very same day you said it, the Liverpool Echo carried a report of an interview conducted with yourself, in which you repeat the spurious statistics and questionable assertions for which you were so lambasted following your Radio Merseyside interview earlier in the week.

 

It was also very conspicuous that your post on Toffeeweb is largely free of those accusations.

 

So, in other words, over the course of five days you’ve freely declared some very dubious viewpoints on Radio Merseyside and then repeated them in the Liverpool Echo but judiciously chose to avoid them on Toffeeweb.

 

You choose your audiences well.

 

But there’s the damage, you see, and that’s why many of your fellow Evertonians are so frustrated by you. For you chose two of the biggest local media channels to make some flawed pronouncements to an audience of many thousands; but then opt for a (relatively) conservative line when addressing a fans’ site which has nowhere near the reach of Radio Merseyside or the Liverpool Echo.

 

Yet, while you’re on Toffeeweb, you announce your hope to see that the “new situation” we are in is served by the “full truth” and “not half truths” but several paragraphs later you go on to denounce Lyndon Lloyd’s piece “A Blessing in Disguise” as propaganda.

 

Can you not see the inherent inconsistency here?

 

Propaganda, I would contend, was the club’s voting literature last summer - complete with Messrs Moyes, Cahill, Carsley (gone), Johnson (gone) and Stubbs (gone) wheeled out to patronise the fans - which was long on rhetoric and short on substance (a textbook definition of propaganda?); or the open letter from Keith Wyness halfway through the voting procedure; or the attendant spin in the local media; or the subsequent club video with Alan Stubbs superimposed over CGI depictions of the new stadium.

 

And yes, I would readily concede that propaganda was also the KEIOC DVD episode which was an own-goal that could have cost them a few thousand wavering voters (and when you consider that a swing of less than 2,500 fans clinched the “Yes” vote for the club that’s quite significant).

 

About the only episode last summer that I couldn’t categorise as propaganda was Sir Terry Leahy’s (very late) open letter to fans (so conspicuously professional in comparison to Keith Wyness’ upper sixth effort) which I’m sure was the clinching factor in achieving the “Yes” vote.

 

Again, though, if you consider just how close the swing factor was in the vote result - think the Paddock basically - just imagine what the result would have been had the club not resorted to the naked propaganda exercises that it undertook?

 

I didn’t hear you complaining then.

 

Or just imagine what the result would have been had the truths and realities of Destination Kirkby, as related in Lyndon Lloyd’s piece (and so noticeably unchallenged by you), been exposed pre-vote?

 

That’s why I find it incredulous that you so quickly dismissed Lyndon’s piece - so absolutely grounded in fact - as mere propaganda in virtually the same breath that you call for a new era unclouded by half truths.

 

If Lyndon’s piece was propaganda, Professor Cannon, then why not employ your intellectual rigour to deconstruct it, point by point, and prove the case?

 

I suggest you won’t be able to because Lyndon’s piece was based on fact.

 

Propaganda, though, was most certainly what you related to Neil Hodgson of the Liverpool Echo for the piece that was published yesterday; on the very day you make a plea here on Toffeeweb for the cessation of “half truths”.

 

For you to cite the loss of potential revenue from “pop concerts” at Kirkby was just staggering.

 

Either you have obviously not kept up-to-date with the planning realities of the Kirkby project (in which case how arrogant of you to speak as a voice of authority to two of the leading local media channels over the last few days); or you were indeed well aware of the constraints but still mischievously ignored them in favour of a quickly aired soundbite.

 

There can be no other conclusion. And I’m not sure which of those is the bigger indictment.

 

Finally, it is noticeable that you have repeated the same vein of rhetoric so recently espoused by Peter Kilfoyle regarding the failure of the Everton-King’s Dock project.

 

This is revisionism.

 

Unless every Evertonian - and indeed the local media - has been misled these last five years, I was under the impression that the fault for Everton failing to secure the King’s Dock (and therefore wasting almost four years of the club’s valuable time) was solely due to the fact that it couldn’t stump up the cash.

 

Yes or no? Please tell us.

 

If yourself and Peter Kilfoyle are now to be believed, it would seem the blame lies elsewhere? At the doors of Liverpool City Council. Really?

 

It is very strange, then, that these recent noises to that effect (sophistry, if you ask me) have only come to the fore some five years after the demise of that project; and it’s equally curious that the club, at the time, in summer 2003, didn’t vehemently complain about Liverpool City Council’s (LCC) project-blocking actions.

 

The fact that EFC didn’t protest at the time bears a striking similarity to the lack of complaint issued by the club regarding the perceived double standards concerning planning permission on Stanley Park to which you have alluded.

 

You are right to claim that there were, indeed, contradictory noises emanating from LCC towards EFC and LFC concerning the Stanley Park issue; the reality, though, is not quite as clear-cut as you have made out. And I think you know it.

 

The subject of the council’s double standards concerning Stanley Park has been explored and related at length in two different article-and-thread episodes on Toffeeweb in the last year.

 

http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/07-08/comment/fan/article.asp?submissionID=1300

 

http://www.toffeeweb.com/season/07-08/comment/mailbag/mailbagitem.asp?submissionID=7932#comments

 

I’d urge you to read those articles and threads and if you can correct me (in particular) - or you’re privy to more detailed information - then I stand to be corrected and would certainly welcome clarification; because I would love to know exactly what went on in communications (whatever the media employed) between all the following parties between January 1st and May 31st 2000: David Henshaw, Mike Storey, Rick Parry and Bill Kenwright.

 

As things stand, though, I would suggest that Bill Kenwright’s silence concerning the double standards of LCC regarding Stanley Park has been deafening these last five years.

 

And I think you know the reasons why he has chosen to keep his own counsel concerning the events - and the sequence of them - during early 2000.

 

Similarly, I would suggest that Bill Kenwright’s silence (and definitely Paul Gregg’s) concerning LCC’s recently alleged scuppering of the King’s Dock project has been equally deafening.

 

And I think, again, you know the reasons why Bill Kenwright (and by implication Paul Gregg) has chosen to keep his own counsel concerning the events during summer 2003 when the plug was finally pulled: chiefly because Everton FC had no-one but itself to blame for the demise of the King’s Dock project.

 

Professor Cannon, you ask for a new era which is based on truth and facts.

 

Might I suggest that - given your greater exposure to the media - you take the lead and set us all an example to follow.