Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Louis

Fortress Sports Fund

Recommended Posts

Have a read of page 76:

 

http://inquiry.knowsley.gov.uk/Proof%20of%...%20Dec%2008.pdf (43mb!)

 

morning

 

Much as I have always embraced the concept of free speech...your constant

banging on about the SFF is utterly ridiculous....

 

Clubs, large and small, chase such investment every day of every year.....the

difference is, they are not forced to go public with the detail as Kenwright was

last summer...

 

Why? Because had he not done so, Gregg WOULD have taken control of this

Club...and what would he have done? Well, you don't know...I, of course, do as I

was in on the management/Board meetings.

 

Trust me when I say this - the SFF may not have happened but Kenwright's

decision to go public with news of the talks WAS wholly justified.

 

Another thing...for your info only...Samuelsen DID colme through with both the

fund and the cash....but by that point the SFF had served its purpose...Bill

told him to go away...

 

Why haven't we announced that small detail? ....because it doesn't really

matter....what mattered was achieved.

 

The belief that we are all f***ing idiots in here who couldn't run a sandwich

stall is ill-founded....CL, a massively-improved performance and turnover, a

place in the Deloitte's Top Twenty listing for the first time......

 

And still you moan about something which was designed to be used as a means to

an end.......nothing more

 

If we did what Kenwright's detractors wish us to do - produce the SFF investment

on the terms we talked about 12 months ago - this Club would be (approx ) 30 per

cent UNDER-VALUED...not a great idea, methinks

have a good day

 

Ian

 

It's from Everton's head of communications to a shareholder.

 

Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, i read from 77 down.

very interesting, pretty much what we knew anyway, but never seen in black and white before.

the term Billy Liar comes back into mind.

i like Ian Ross, good with words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Rooney SETTLED out of court with Moyes, who said he hadnt pushed him in any way and wanted him to stay.

 

 

So why give Rooney all the stick for going when he clearly had no say in the transfer, and was going to be sold even if he wanted to stay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how any of that (Fortess or Rooney) could be described as "proof."

 

All very speculative, and personally I think...

 

"We understand from sources very close to the Rooney family that Wayne did not want to

leave Everton; these circumstances meant that he was being forced out of the Club he loved."

 

....and the rest of the Rooney stuff is pure fantasy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not Proof but i dont think you can call it "Fantasy" Mike, unless i'm mistaken his was spoken about at an AGM in front of a lot of influential people who know a bit more than you or I, you should also have quoted all of page 82 not just one line, and mention the fact that a ten million loan was paid off 4 days after Rooneys Transfer, they had borrowed the money knowing that the only asset they had left (Rooney) was going to be sold.

 

So it makes you think that the offer of £50.000 a week contract they supposedly offered him to stay (supposedly the highest offer in the clubs history) was another red herring, there seems to be a lot of lies coming from the EFC boardroom over the last few years so my faith in the board as diminished somewhat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's still speculation spun furiously by KEIOC to support their position.

 

I picked out that bit to quote as it best represented my viewpoint....I could have quoted heaps more.

 

It's Everton's smoking gun, moon landings never happened, Sept 11th was a CIA/Isreali operation, Elvis lives on the grassy knoll...

 

...all very plausible at face value but falls apart under scrutiny.

 

There may be some truth in KEIOC's submission...I'm sure there's a lot, but on the issues we're talking here (Rooney & Fortress) there's not, as far as I can see, any proof of any of it. Supposition and speculation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some peeps never leave their Royal blue glasses off and can never see anything clearly. :)

 

That's what the Flat Earth Society say to their detractors (without the "Royal Blue Glasses" bit obviously :D ).

 

Fundamentally it comes down to whether you believe Kenwright is telling the truth or is lying.

 

I think he's telling the truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's what the Flat Earth Society say to their detractors (without the "Royal Blue Glasses" bit obviously :D ).

 

Fundamentally it comes down to whether you believe Kenwright is telling the truth or is lying.

 

I think he's telling the truth.

 

Flat Earth Society!!......When you live in Norfolk, let me tell you ,the earth is friggin flat!!....AND I've got a pair of those Royal Blue Glasses you mentioned....NOW! anything else wrong with me :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the major thing here Mike is that this has been given as evidence to the enquiry, and the club haven't made any moves to deny it.

 

personally on the rooney's attitude at Goodison, id put it down to him feeling betrayed if they have pushed him. disgrace him or disgrace kenwright? its the gary speed howard kendall row all over again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the major thing here Mike is that this has been given as evidence to the enquiry, and the club haven't made any moves to deny it.

 

But it's not yet been addressed at the enquiry has it? That's my understanding though I could be wrong.

 

The club wouldn't make any comment until then surely....even if they've been given access to the information before it went public?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
im sure thats all the evidence brought forward in december. elstone spent a lot of december on the stand.

 

....but that was cross-examining...not presenting their case.

 

I thought I read somewhere that KEIOC and KRAG were going to present their cases when the inquiry re-convenes :huh: .

 

I can't find that anywhere now though so I may be mistaken...Louis would know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Tuesday, the transport consultants (Steer Davies Gleave - stadium transport planners/JMP - Knowsley's consultants) will be cross examined by everybody who wants to (Liverpool Council/Combined Authoritys/KRAG/KEIOC etc.).

 

That is the last time anyone from the applicants will be cross examined. Then it's everyone else who has an opinion of the development giving evidence of why it should be opposed /supported until the end of the inquiry.

 

On January 23rd there will be a summing up by KEIOC of what's already on paper.

 

January 30th inquiry ends.

 

Everton will not have seen the KEIOC documents until around 18th December and they haven't had a chance to dispute anything yet - I think this will be on the 23rd Jan.

 

Mike - The document you were quoting was from toffeeweb ( http://www.toffeeweb...nt/13-truth.asp ). It was referred to in the proof of evidence because it contained a direct quote from Bill Kenwright, this is how it is mentioned in the proof as follows:

 

Everton FC paid off an outstanding £10m loan to Singer and Friedlander; a loan that Mr Kenwright had previously described to concerned Everton shareholders as an ‘advance from Sky’.

 

The doc I linked above was the appendices for the EGM section of KEIOC's proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, my apologies for not posting recently about anything. For some reason I was unable to log in at all. Had to sit in here as a 'guest' for a while. Not sure why.

 

Anyway I have been reading as much in here as I can, and I would like to ask a question.

 

Is there any indication as yet on which way the decision is likely to go?

 

There has been a lot said, but I am still not fully sure on the arguments. I have my opinion but I am very biased on this, I would just like to know how the 'decision makers' may be taking all this argumentative debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update - KEIOC evidence will now be the 28th, not 23rd.

 

Rube - It's in the balance and that it could go either way - although I'd say that the opponents have the upper hand at the moment (I would, wouldn't I?). The planning inspector is the same one who approved Terminal 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×