[I]Professor[/I] Tom Cannon Gets His Arse Handed To Him

**Anubis** · August 10, 2008

From Toffeeweb, and fairly entertaining. For completeness, I've started with a piece by TW columnist Lyndon Lloyd on the Kirkby call-in, followed by the Prof's piece in reply, followed by a highly astute reply from a guy called Greg Murphy. And I thought it was only us that considered Cannon a grifter.

A Blessing in Disguise

By Lyndon Lloyd : 07/08/2008

Evertonians find themselves in a peculiar situation today, wondering if the announcement over the immediate future of Destination Kirkby is the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning of Everton's part in the scheme.

Having been horribly divided for a year by the most important issue that the Club has faced in generations, supporters had been waiting with for weeks with bated breath for word of the Government's decision on the controversial proposal. When it abuptly came yesterday evening, over a month after the Government Office for the North West's initial deadline of 3rd July, the news that the scheme has been called in for public scrutiny brought no closure or semblance of finality to the issue.

Of course, it was never going to. Despite the assertion by recently-departed CEO Keith Wyness that the delay while the proposal spent anywhere between a year to 18 months under further scrutiny would likely force Everton to abandon their part in the scheme, no-one expected any immediate announcement by the remaining Board members to drop plans for a new purpose-built stadium in Kirkby.

Nevertheless, the reaction from fans from both sides of the fence has run the gamut from anger to gloating, bitterness to relief, with many treating the announcement as though it were somehow decisive. And it may well prove to be. Already facing a battle to find the £78m for their part of the Tesco-led £400m redevelopment of Kirkby town center, it's almost certain that, if and when the proposal gets the green light, the rising costs of construction in the interim will prove to be prohibitive for Everton.

That has provoked a furious reaction from some who voted "Yes" in last year's ballot who are now pointing accusing fingers at their counterparts on the "No" side, blaming them and Keep Everton In Our City for signing the club's death warrant and hastening the departure of manager David Moyes.

It's important to retain some perspective here. While the stadium may have been pivotal to Tesco's hopes of having their plans approved — a sporting or leisure component was required to justify the size of the retail element of their plans for redevelopment and regeneration of Kirkby — in the broad context of the Government's decision to call in the scheme, it (the stadium) was probably a small consideration.

So, without wishing to take anything away from KEIOC's increasingly measured and targeted opposition to Destination Kirkby, the suggestion from some quarters — not least Professor Tom Cannon on local radio last night — that the action group has somehow single-handedly denied Everton £15m in annual revenue is, quite frankly absurd and disingenuous in the extreme.

If Sir Terry Leahy's apparently close relationship with the sitting Government, Bill Kenwright's profile as a longtime financial backer of the Labour Party, and the last-minute pressure from local MPs like George Howarth and Peter Kilfolyle weren't enough to steer the proposal past the need for a public inquiry, it's ludicrous to suggest that a group of Everton fans could have played a decisive role in Hazel Blears' department's decision.

No, put simply, Destination Kirkby was called in because of its sheer size, its implications for the region as a whole, and the consequent objections from neighbouring retail interests and political entities. Tesco's proposal — for which the stadium was a linchpin — was for a development almost half the size of the £1bn Liverpool One development in a town of just 40,000 people and, as such, contravened local planning policy.

Similarly, it's an exaggeration to suggest, as some are, that the death of the Kirkby stadium — if that is what yesterday's announcement eventually proves to be — has somehow wiped away Everton's hopes of breaking into the top four and gaining foothold in the hugely lucrative Champions League. There may have been a chance of the new ground proving to be such a boon the club had the proposal turned out in reality to be anything close to what was promised by Wyness at the time of the vote, but as we've now seen it didn't.

A brand new, "world class" 50,000-seater stadium that would guarantee "up to £10m a year" in additional revenue from attendance alone for an initial outlay from Everton of just £15m may well have been something akin to the "deal of the century". Promises of additional revenue from non-football activities would have further bolstered the club's coffers and provided a platform from which to compete with the Sky Four.

Of course, as has since become abundantly clear — but was pointed by many on this site from the outset — Wyness's claims didn't hold up to close scrutiny. Frankly, they were far-fetched and a gross misrepresentation of what Everton stood to gain from participation in the scheme. Because when you look at what the proposed stadium in Kirkby actually boils down to, it bears little resemblance to the vision that was sold to the fans of an "effectively free" stadium.

In fact, as flippant as it sounds, it could be argued that the only similarity between what was put to the fans in the ballot brochure and the PR campaign that accompanied it and what went into the final planning application was that the ground would be in Kirkby. Furthermore, it doesn't now appear to offer much, if anything, more than could be attained by redeveloping Goodison Park.

The "world class" design dressed up in an inviting night-time scene with the now infamous "Batman lights"? It turned out that the darkness obscured the stadium's location on the end of Tesco's car park across the road from the shops themselves. Later, the entire bottom floor arcade underneath the stadium was scrapped from the plans, leaving something worryingly similar to The New Den or Southampton's St Mary's Stadium.

The catchment area of "four million" untapped northwest residents to whose doorsteps Everton FC would be six miles closer if they moved to Kirkby? A myth. The area Wyness described is shared not only by the likes of Wigan Athletic and Blackburn Rovers but also Rugby League; if they aren't Evertonians now, they're not any more likely to be in the future. Only success on the pitch or a truly magnificent stadium could hope to change that.

The best-served stadium in the country in terms of transport infrastructure? Debunked when it became apparent (i) that there would be no on-site parking for match-going fans — instead, they would be coralled in the country's biggest park-and-ride scheme or forced to make the 30- to 45-minute walk from the Liverpool side of the M57; (ii) that the single-track rail line from Liverpool to Kirkby could handle just 4,000 people an hour; (iii) that a revived MerseyTram system serving Kirkby would either not be ready in time for the stadium's opening or may not ever come to fruition at all; and (iv) that the local bus service would not be able to handle the load required of it either.

The extra-football revenue generators? All but non-existent in the final reckoning. The pubs, bars, restaurants and clubs that could be incorporated into the stadium and were put forth as yet more reasons why a new stadium on a fresh retail development was so attractive never made it into the planning application. While the local council would be granted 100 free events a year at the stadium, the concerts and events that Wyness predicted would bring the club much-needed revenue at times when the stadium wasn't being used for football were expressly prohibited by the final proposals. Hopes that this "mid-level" stadium would be considered for England's bid for the 2018 World Cup when Liverpool's proposed structure would be bigger and have the added benefit of being in the City? Fanciful.

The additional and immediate £10m a year in revenue "for David Moyes's transfer kitty"? That would now be swallowed up by the debt Everton would have to take on to fund their £78m commitment, making it unlikely that any profit would be made from the stadium for many years. That's not to even mention the fact that Wyness's projection was based on the stadium selling out week-in, week-out and, he admitted, was only likely while the "new stadium effect" lasted, typically only a few seasons. It did not take into account the unknown numbers of objectors among the club's core match-going support who would stop going to games in protest at the club's move from the City.

So, when you deconstruct Destination Kirkby as it relates to Everton, it all appears to come down to increased seating capacity and new facilities, both of which could be attained by redeveloping Goodison Park... but with the added benefit of having the club in its traditional home in north Liverpool where it enjoys a mature, urban transport infrastructure, one of the largest percentages of walk-up fans, and perhaps the fastest post-game dispersal rate of any ground in the top flight.

And even if you're convinced that Destination Kirkby was Everton's key to the top four, you have to believe in the first place that the current Board could deliver on a £78m scheme when it failed so disappointingly with an even better opportunity at the Kings Dock for a mere £30m six years ago.

Kirkby was sold by Leahy, in a letter that many believe clinched the majority Yes vote for the club last August, on the basis of trust. He asked the fans to trust that the Board knew what it was doing and yet consistently, both before and since the day that open letter was splashed across the Official Site and the local press — from the Rooney controversy and Kenwright's "absolutely definitely" speech on the eve of the 2004 transfer deadline, to the Fortress Sports Fund con and the successive broken pledges over Kirkby — the club hierarchy has eroded much of the trust that Everton fans dared place in them. Even now, following an awful summer of waiting for reinforcements to be made to a threadbare squad, fans are asked to believe that transfer funds have been in place since May and were unaffected by Destination Kirkby either way.

As frightening as our club's current predicament appears to be, it's hard to accept the idea that the end of Everton's plans in Kirkby spells certain disaster as Destination Kirkby always seemed to be a by-product of the club's financial woes rather than the solution to them.

I remain convinced that it was a short-term fix with no guarantee of success that would have had damaging long-term effects on the club. Cries that "luddite No voters" will be the catalyst that forces David Moyes out of the club now that a resolution to the stadium problem appears to have been set back untold years are all predicated on the assumption that Kirkby would have provided the funds needed to fund his transfer ambitions.

At the projected £10m a year — or half of what Sporting Lisbon want for Joao Moutinho — that was never going to be the case. Only qualification for the Champions League or a takeover by a billionaire investor could hope to provide the £20m - £30m annually that he would realistially need... and that's assuming Moyes would even be at Everton by the time the new stadium opened in 2012.

Likewise, citing Kirkby as a shortcut to a big-money takeover is a short-term, quick-fix view that fails to take into account the fact that over the long term, a mediocre stadium in a provincial town is not the ideal foundation on which to try to build a footballing dynasty. It's no accident that Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham, Everton and Aston Villa, the biggest and most successful clubs in English history are all homed in major cities while the likes of Coventry (whose Tesco experiment is an ominous precedent for the Blues), Leicester and Southampton, all of whom banked on new stadia transforming their fortunes, have sunk into the lower divisions.

Destination Kirkby may be under threat and Everton's part in the project may soon be over but, far from sounding the death knell for the club, it offers an opportunity to re-evaluate the club's position with regard to either Goodison Park or relocating elsewhere. By exposing the precarious nature of the club's current financial situation under the current regime (rather than masking them as approval yesterday of Destination Kirkby arguably would have done), it may also hasten inward investment to Everton, either by way of a takeover, through capital investors or a rights issue.

Who doesn't prefer the idea of having a Blue in charge of Everton? Someone who understands the effect of a simple act like painting the pitch-side gravel blue or the pride-swelling impact had by the removal of the advertising hoardings from the Bullens Road stand to expose the old Archibald Leitch criss-cross design that graces photographs of Goodison legends all the way back to William Dean? Who doesn't fear the unknown of foreign ownership and the risks associated with unfamiliar hands on the tiller?

But if Kirkby was the limit of the current Board's power then the proposal is better to have been killed off now — even with the apparent short-term risks it implies — rather than putting the club on what many fans believe would have been an irrevocable slide towards mediocrity and the slow death of everything that makes Everton FC one of the world's greatest footballing institutions.

Tom Cannon's Business Links

By Tom Cannon : 09/08/2008

It is normally my practice to ignore the abuse, threats and simple falsehoods that seem to have become the stock-in-trade of one side of the debate on the ground move, but the recent flurry of distortions probably merits a response.

First, I make no secret of the fact that I have undertaken work in Knowsley and for Knowsley MBC, any more than I make a secret of the work that I have undertaken for Liverpool City Council, Sefton MBC, St Helens Council (all opponents of the development) — in fact every local authority on Merseyside and about 20 other local authorities from London to Sunderland — since I started my company in Liverpool some years ago.

I chose to start my business here because of my commitment to the City and the whole of Merseyside. I want to see every part of the region prosper. My commitment is shaped in part by being born in Kirkdale off Stanley Road and being rehoused in Kirkby by Liverpool City Council in the late 1950s — when our estate was very firmly in Liverpool.

The use of the "discovery" of my work for Knowsley seems to be standard practice by some opponents of "Destination Kirkby." They give only that part of the evidence that serves their interests even if it turns the truth into a falsehood. Just to save anyone the trouble, I think that I might have undertaken work for Tesco some years ago, along with a host of other quality companies.

The attack on Peter Kilfoyle MP illustrates this willingness to play fast and loose with the facts. No-one could doubt his integrity and commitment to the needs of his constituency especially after he resigned from choice Ministerial position because he believed the needs of his constituents and others from Labour's heartlands were being neglected. He chose the people of Walton over the perks of power. And so, as an Everton supporter and MP he was seen at Goodison and KEOIC launched its spurious attack on him. No wonder the House of Commons authorities rejected these allegations.

Yes, and just in case the Miss Marples waste their time, I did share a platform with Peter when he was a Minister in 1998, launching a project to support Microbusinesses in deprived areas (I think) and yes, we had coffee in the House of Commons the same day.

Lyndon Lloyd's piece is a good example of this type of propaganda. He talks about the population of Kirkby being 40,000, ignoring the fact that the local authority area in question is Knowsley with a population of over 150,000 and a catchment of well over 500,000. Does anyone really think that Tesco don't know how to choose a retail location? It is like questioning the viability of Liverpool One on the basis that the population of the two nearest wards in Liverpool only have a population of 25,000.

On the specifics of my interview on Radio Merseyside, I did not attribute the "call in" to the actions of KEOIC, but placed most of the responsibility to a failure of will by the government and a misunderstanding of the dynamics of retailing by the other Merseyside local authorities.

The government's action does, of course, create a new situation. One in which Liverpool City Council must now "put up or shut up." Having been around when Everton first sought — and were refused planning permission — for a new stadium in Stanley Park — unlike quess who? I was, also, there when the Council's refusal to give a commitment on planning permission for retailing at Goodison scuppered the Kings Dock.

I, also, read Warren Bradley's most recent proposal for a ground share with Liverpool — with Everton as the tenants of the lovable reds? Fourth or is it fifth time lucky with Liverpool City Council?

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. I'd, also, like to see an end to the abuse, the threats and the graffiti — not only to me, but to the everyone associated with the club — none of which brings any credit on the club.

Greg Murphy

Posted 10/08/2008 at 14:30:47

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.

Toffeeweb - Fan Articles - Too Late to Cry

Toffeeweb - The Mail Bag -LFC, EFC and Kings Dock

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.

August 10, 2008

How do you go about repping Greg Murphy?

ratcatcher · August 10, 2008

Blimey! Had to get me reading specs on for that!

kopitegaz · August 10, 2008

A larger font would have been nice

Hand Shandy · August 10, 2008

I'm afraid I don't care enough about the blueshite to bother ploughing through all that.

Thanks for the effort though. ;-)

Magic_H · August 10, 2008

forgive my ignorance of all things gay, but what the fuck is 'repping' or 'repped'?

Hazel Motes · August 10, 2008

Some italic formatting in the thread title would also be great. Otherwise a very nice thread.

**Stouffer** · August 11, 2008

From Toffeeweb, and fairly entertaining. For completeness, I've started with a piece by TW columnist Lyndon Lloyd on the Kirkby call-in, followed by the Prof's piece in reply, followed by a highly astute reply from a guy called Greg Murphy. And I thought it was only us that considered Cannon a grifter.

A Blessing in Disguise

By Lyndon Lloyd : 07/08/2008