The Everton Board Thread (Inc. Bill Kenwright / Blue Union)

[atrottel]

So what's the story then, Silas and davek, was it a secret tape?

 

[Muggins]

It does seem a bit convenient I agree.

Looks like Kenwright rubber stamped the interview though.

No one should hammer you for adding a bit of balance to the discussion mate

 

[Muggins]

So what's the story then, Silas and davek, was it a secret tape?

At one point I swear I read that Bill asked his secretary to get Keith Harris on the phone, but nothing more was mentioned.

 

[broudie]

Didn't forget it was the only question not allowed. Understandably.

Fair enough - however it's a shame when Bill was constantly saying "I don't know why noone wants to buy Everton", that the question couldnt have been framed 'are you asking too much, in the current market?', or, 'are the current shareholders looking to make a profit or simply recoup their investments?'.

Neither of these would have been asking him to directly reveal the valuation (albeit the second is close to that).


Also - (and apologies if this has been mentioned, I've not read alot of the previous 21 pages) - but is Philip Green an idiot? Admittedly there might be a few die-hards who would not go to Topshop on priniciple, but the majority of shite supporters in the country either don't realise we're in the same city as their team, and/or think of Utd as their biggest rivals anyway. The other way around it might be a different story, I must admit I don't really drink Carlsberg, have never owned a Candy or Hitachi appliance, and won't decorate with Crown Paints - but I'm a bitter twat, eh.

 

[davek]

Kenwright's made himself look like the out of touch loony he is - but the people asking the questions are to blame?

 

[atrottel]

This is what I was referring to:

DegsyHatton Derek Hatton



@peoplesgroup sorry lads, taping meetin without anyone knowing is disgraceful and underhanded. I feel I can never help you again!

From what I understand he helped set up the meeting. And yes, there is a difference between reporting a meeting and recording it without the knowledge of a participant. If true. Which is why it would have been far better to get people who know what they are doing - or who understand the ramifications of their actions - to ask those questions (although I appreciate the difficulty of getting them interested).

 

[zero]

This is what I was referring to:

From what I understand he helped set up the meeting. And yes, there is a difference between reporting a meeting and recording it without the knowledge of a participant. If true. Which is why it would have been far better to get people who know what they are doing - or who understand the ramifications of their actions - to ask those questions (although I appreciate the difficulty of getting them interested).

If true that is completely out of order.

 

[davek]

Deggsy should wind his neck in.

A) Have those fellers who interviewed BK said they taped the meeting? The People's Group say they were doing it from memory.

b ) If they did, that still doesn't mean BK wanted it off the record or that it should be off the record. BK knew he was talking to representatives - should he really expect them to sit on that info?

 

[atrottel]

Deggsy should wind his neck in.

A) Have those fellers who interviewed BK said they taped the meeting? The People's Group say they were doing it from memory.

b ) If they did, that still doesn't mean BK wanted it off the record or that it should be off the record. BK knew he was talking to representatives - should he really expect them to sit on that info?

No, but as an ex-journalist, I know that there is a difference, both morally and, potentially, legally.

I could, for example, post your image on here in the members' photos thread and claim it is "freely available on the internet". But there is a difference between you agreeing to it and me doing it without your agreement. Or do you not see it that way?

 

[davek]

No, but as an ex-journalist, I know that there is a difference, both morally and, potentially, legally.

I could, for example, post your image on here in the members' photos thread and claim it is "freely available on the internet". But there is a difference between you agreeing to it and me doing it without your agreement. Or do you not see it that way?

I well understand that. The understanding of that meeting from one of the parties that's in the public domain merely says they were writing from memory and that that's why the details were delayed since Friday. No one anywhere has mentioned tapes or that this fan group wouldn't or couldn't pass on their findings to the wider base. That's your assumption.

 

[atrottel]

Interesting that you appear to know what my assumption is... (and don't even go down the road of me being a Kenwright apologist).

Deggsy wrote about taping secretly and I wrote about the implications 'if true'. A professional journalist would take notes (in shorthand, which notes are allowed to be used in court proceedings, if necessary) and request, if they wanted to, permission to record a meeting (I had that happen to me from the other side as a young reporter by a bench of lawyers sitting behind the interviewee). Areas which were on or off the record would be agreed beforehand (which I understand from what Silas said as being what happened).

 

[davek]

Interesting that you appear to know what my assumption is... (and don't even go down the road of me being a Kenwright apologist).

Deggsy wrote about taping secretly and I wrote about the implications 'if true'. A professional journalist would take notes (in shorthand, which notes are allowed to be used in court proceedings, if necessary) and request, if they wanted to, permission to record a meeting (I had that happen to me from the other side as a young reporter by a bench of lawyers sitting behind the interviewee). Areas which were on or off the record would be agreed beforehand (which I understand from what Silas said as being what happened).

You're assuming Hatton is correct in his assumption. Not that difficult to follow mate!

Silas (and the E4C website presenting this interview) explained what area was agreed off limits/left out: personal/family stuff. That's all we know. Until then I'd accept that until proven otherwise.

I think you're tortuously pursuing a non-issue because you guard some professional standard you want preserving. Bill knew they weren't professionals. If he's bleating now via Hatton he's supremely naive.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Where can I get an audio of this?

 

[atrottel]

I think you're tortuously pursuing a non-issue because you guard some professional standard you want preserving. Bill knew they weren't professionals. If he's bleating now via Hatton he's supremely naive.

Well, tbh, I've long given up on any professional standards, whether it is the numptiness of the Echo or the evil of NOTW. But I was trying to point out why those standards help the credibility of all sides.

(One of my main beefs about Kenwright is his absolute naivete when it comes to business matters, this being a prime example.)

 

[kenada_blue]

Well, tbh, I've long given up on any professional standards, whether it is the numptiness of the Echo or the evil of NOTW. But I was trying to point out why those standards help the credibility of all sides.

(One of my main beefs about Kenwright is his absolute naivete when it comes to business matters, this being a prime example.)

What like the "gentlemans agreement" with Gosling last season?