Not sure what a Kenwright denier actually is, but if you mean that I'm some sort of supporter of Kenwright, then you're way wide of the mark. My personal opinion of the man is irrelevant to the debate, but seeing as you've come to conclusion that I'm backing the man's tenure here, then I'll give you my view.
Kenwright should never have taken the reigns at Goodison, he's never had the financial muscle to own a PL club. He was driven by his 'dream' & that dream came to fruition, a fact I've no doubt he's extremely proud of. However, his lack of liquid cash & his need to find a investor 'partner' when his relationship with Gregg died, has lead him to make some decisions that were more about him being able to retain his status as Chairman of EFC, rather than what was maybe best for both the business & the long term future of the football club. In short, he's been out of his depth since the day he took over.
None of which makes him a horror who should be despised imo, but he's a man who needs to understand that he's holding back the very thing he holds so dear. I fear this is being exacerbated by the fact that the 'bed fellows' that assisted him to secure his tenure, have no interest in the football club & are merely seeking the maximum return on their investment. Which has left us in limbo, as there's patently no-one out there who's prepared to pay the asking price, the asking price of the business is the key issue as far as I'm concerned.
So back to this thread. There's a lack of perspective amongst some of our fanbase when it comes to anything board or Kenwright related imo, that probably dates back to the Kirkby debacle, when lines were drawn & trenches were dug. As a result there's a seeming eagerness to look for the negative in any club related issue, which to a degree I understand due to mistrust etc, however, the board aren't the football club & I think the desire to find the 'downside' is paramount is some Blues minds these days.
The reason I stepped in to challenge those who were intimating that the OOC's were potentially hiding something sinister, is that they were floating the idea that a serious fraud is taking place, with nothing to back it up, which to me is bang out of order. There's a massive difference between a call for clarity around the numbers (which I support) & then taking that a step further & intimating foul play. My personal position in life makes this a subject that I find beyond gauling, as libelling someone in that nature is totally wrong in my book.
In regards to the clarity asked for, lets be right here, even if they did offer a further level of detail, it would be pawed over by some who still wouldn't be satisfied & would want look to criticise everything from their chosen gas tariff to the price paid for bog rolls. So to a point I can understand if there's some reticence to offer it.