I don't understand this "both sides" argument. Why the need for such division? Surely we are all Blues and we should have enough common ground to overcome any differences in approach and strategies when dealing with the board.
With regards to the issue of biography or auto-biography the whole discussion arose when I made the distinction. In the same post I also highlighted the claim the Green had bought Everton.
My point in highlighting this is not to embarrass an individual poster (he and I have had perfectly amicable private conversations) but to highlight that any fan group that wishes to take on someone like Green to task must be extremely precise in their comments and claims. The lack of precision does two things. Firstly it makes any defence by the board or others much easier as the inaccuracies will be highlighted to discredit the bigger argument and secondly people who recognise the inaccuracies are less likely to join a group because of them.
On a wider note, if there is such a body of evidence against substantial claims why has there been no meaningful action to bring any wrongdoing to the authorities and to shareholders ? There may be perfectly legitimate reasons, lack of resources, lack of expertise etc but from my perspective to make claims and then not to follow them through is an odd strategy. What does it hope to achieve?
As I said to begin with, there's more common ground than there is areas of division, let's debate but let's not be devisive.
