Everton Independent Research Data


May 1 1920. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
Everton have signed on John McDonald, full back of the Airdrie Club, McDonald played for Scotland in the victory International against Ireland and was chosen for the Scottish League again this year. He stands ft 9 and half inches Weighs 11 stone and is twenty-five years old.

May 1, 1920. The Liverpool Football Echo
At Dingle Park, before 3,000 spectators Everton played downhill, and had the best of the opening play, but Morris and Wynn defended well. Cotton miss a good chance by sending over the bar when nicely placed, and later Mitchell saved from Cooper and Harrington. The game for a friendly was very interesting, and was played at a good pace, both sides putting in clever work, but the home forwards were the most dangerous in front of goal, and showed more method in there attack. Mitchell saved firstly from Harrington, who received a splendid pass from close in, and the goalkeeper was heartily cheered for his feat. Eventually Cooper scored for the South, shortly after Robinson should have equalised as Kearslake work a splendid opening for him, but his final effort hit the crossbar. Harrington them scored a second for the South Liverpool.

May 1, 1920. The Liverpool Football Echo
“New times demand new measures and new men.” The following excerpt from Thursday's Echo is the most interesting news of Everton we have heard for many a day. Listen to this. A circular is to be posted to the shareholders in a few days pointing out the club's position and the cause thereof, and stating that the three retiring directors (Messrs J. Davies, Halsall, and Banks) are not re-lected the remaining directors will resign their position, as the adverse vote will imply a want of confidence in the whole board.

As a shareholder used to having a “larger” say in these matters I “ devored” this pronouncement with the greatest avidity. For some time past I have been an “intense” advocate of change which, according to an old proverb is good for man and neast. A great mind once enlightened mankind with the knowledge that “new demands new measures, and new men,” and surely Everton's lean season is in itself sufficient reason for the all-powerful shareholders to decide upon, whatever course of drastic action they deen nest. The apathy lethargy or dormancy –call it what you will –of the Everton shareholders this season has been one of life's tragedies, and now when they rouse themselves to a sense of their bounden duty of putting the Everton house in order to the satisfaction of the club's thousands of supporters, their doings are interpreter as a want of confidence in the directors. The shareholders of Everton are members of a Limited liability company –not mere marionettes –and as such have omnipotent powers, which they relegate to certain persons whom they choose as directors –the choice being absolutely their own prerogative. The directors though invested with such plenary powers, often lose sight of the fact that they are nevertheless the servant of the shareholders, who can elect re-elect, or depose them ad lib, without anybody's leave or hoence or any notice of a “want of confidence” stunt. There are many shareholders –and I have power to add to their number –who would like to see an infusion of new blood on the directorate at once. In other words, that Mr. Gibbons and Mr. Sawyer be “run” as candidates in opposition to Messrs, Davies, and Halsall at the forthcoming annual meeting. All those in favour of the movement “get busy.” Now is the acceptable time, fellows shareholders to assert your authority.

So Everton are granting benefits to Fern, Mitchell, Harrison, Thompson, Parker, and Weller. The list may seen a lengthy one, but you will find shareholders agreeing that it should be more elastic. There seems to be no mention of Clennell and Kirsopp. The former drew £250 on account, last season and probably will “click” for the other half in due course. But it strikes me –though I am open to correction –that Kirsopp is eligible for a benefit if he has been affiliated to Everton five or six years. I hold no brief for individuals, but I certainly believe in giving pure local –who cost practically nothing –every encouragement and a prompt benefit. Everton abound in wealth, and can easily financially recognise all eligible players on their books. Delays in accommodation are not conductive to good feeling among the players. By the way, how many of their players are Liverpool benefiting this season.

May 1, 1920. The Liverpool Football Echo
Last Saturday on the much-improved Cement Works enclosure the Cement Works were engaged with a representative team from Everton in a friendly encounter. Half-time arrived with no score. After the interval the Cement men set about the game in a businesslike manner, and Stanley was unfortunate in not securing a point, the goalkeeper being weak in clearing a ground shot. After sixty minutes Stanley was again prominent and placed the ball into the goalmouth, and Hodinson hesitating, not to clear let in Shields who promptly placed the home team one up. The visitors enlivened by this reverse made dashes towards the home goal and Catchpole was quick upon to save a high shot. The little goalie all but let it pass him, and although almost beaten he with characteristic catlike agility pounced up the ball on the goal-line, and the home supporters were again able to breathe freely. The home team pressed and after many vigorous attacks, their movements were rewarded, by another goal, Jefishy heading in from a corner. The whistle blew with Cement hailing by 2 goals to nil. The visitors were afterwards entertained at tea in the Cement Offices when a hearty vote of thanks was accorded the Everton team for visiting such an excellent game.

Sunday Post - Sunday 02 May 1920
John M'Donald, the right back of Airdrieonians, has been signed by Everton.  M'Donald played last season in the League Victory 'National, and this season he represented the Scottish League against Ireland at Belfast. He belongs to Dykehead, 5ft. 10ins., and weighs 12 stone 7 lbs. The transfer fee is put £2500

May 3, 1920. The Liverpool Courier.
There was a “do or die” aspect about the visit of Preston North End to Goodison Park on Saturday. Defeat would have been fatal to the North End prospects of staying in the First Division had their immediate neighbour been fortunate enough to win. That, of course, they could not be aware of until it was too late, and they displayed a determination to frust to their own efforts, which kept the home side fully extended for the whole of the ninety minutes. In the end Preston, made their position secure by scoring the only goal of the game, but prior to this they had a let off through Downs missing a penalt y kick (Kirsopp was Grassed –Daily Post). On the whole Preston deserved their win, because they had the more convincing forward line, and there was more method and purpose in their attack than the rather spasmodic efforts of the home five, however, were not helped by the over-shooting of their backs. Fern kept a good goal, and had no chance with the winning shot, which was a real beauty from 20 yards, with plenty of pace, and good direction, though Roberts had missed a much better opening just before Downs and Thompson were excellent when purely on the defensive, but put more power than was advisable behind the majority of their clearances, which consequently went to the Preston backs more often than to the home forwards. Fleetwood was the best of the halves, while the extreme wing forwards were also good, but met with very little support from the inside men. Causer had little to do, being well covered, and McCall was the best player on the field till he sustained a nasty cut under his eye in the second half. Jefferis was the brains in an attack, in which every man was keen for a shot at each opportunity. Teams : - Everton: - Fern, goal, Downs, and Thompson, backs, Brown, Fleetwood (Captain), and Weller, half-backs, Chedgzoy, Kirsopp, Peacock, Rigsby, and Harrison, forwards. Preston North End: - Causer, goal, Broadhurst, and Speak, Lees, McCall, and Dawson, half-backs, Clifdon, Jefferis, Roberts, Woodhouse, and Quinn, forwards.

May 3, 1920. The Liverpool Courier.
No details in local papers.

May 4 1920. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
Everton and Prescot attacked in turn at the outset of their match. Jones after beating Dutton, centred, but the inside man failed to take advantage of a good opening. Harrison sent in a beauty-which was cleared with difficulty. The visitors swung the ball about more than Everton, and at times the home defence was severely tested. In the second half Everton pressed, but the fine defence prevailed and Farrar prevented them scoring. Prescot strove hard to score, but Thompson cleared many a dangerous situation, and the final arrived with no score. Extra time was played, and the home goal had some very narrow escapes, Roberts being inches wide just on the finish.

May 6, 1920. The Liverpool Courier.
Everton and Prescot net last night for the replay tie of the Medal Competition at Anfield in wet weather, and on a sudden pitch. This time the Goodison Park men made no mistake, and won by 3 goals to 1. In the first half, Jones had extremely hard luck in hitting the upright. A little later the same player hit the woodwork again from the rebound Stuart scored. Prescot after this extended themselves, but Thompson and Robinson easily served their line. Blair put Everton further ahead after Wall had worked the passage. In the second half the Blues did all the pressing, in the early stages, but after 10 minutes play, Parr got through for Prescot. Just on time Wall added the third for Everton, the semi-final well be played at Anfield tomorrow might, against Liverpool at 7-30

May 7 1920. The Liverpool Echo
I have news that Everton have given Macconnachie, Wareing, and some others a free transfer, and that Macconnachie is likely to go to Fulham. W. B. Evans, the sturdy full back, who has been fancied by W. Meredith was this week signed by the Swindon Club

May 7 1920. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury.
The semi-final ties in the Liverpool County Association Medal Competition was played at Anfield last night. Liverpool meeting Everton and South Liverpool opposing Marine. In the game between Liverpool and Everton the home team were the first to score, a corner well taken by Wadsworth and a miskick by Thompson resulting in J. Miller beating Mitchell. McKinney added a second and a few minutes later Cox registered a third. Blair strove hard to reduce the lead, but Penman and Jenkinson were equal to all calls. The Blues opened the second half in determined fashion, Baker saving smartly from Jones. Miller centred, and Johnson put on a fourth for Liverpool, while from a scrimmage Kearslake scored for Everton.

May 12 1920. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
Everton have transfer Gault and Page to Cardiff City, who are applicants for admission to the second division, at the annual meeting of the Everton football Club on Monday night. Fern, Thompson, Mitchell, Parker, and Clennell, received their benefit money of £500, were handled to each of the players named with the exception of Clennell who received the balance of £250 which amount to had already received.

May 14, 1920. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
The final of the Birkenhead Borough hospital Cup was played on the ground of the holders, Tranmere Rovers last evening, and resulted in an overwhelming victory for the home side, the Everton Reserves team opposed to them being quite outplayed in the first half, playing against the wind, and the Rovers put on a couple of goals and Everton score one. In the second half the visitors were judiciously outclassed, and the Rovers added six goals, Groves scored four times and Mercer twice . Everton: - Mitchell, goal, Rooney, Thompson, backs, Robinson, Farrer, and Carratt, half-backs, Ormerod, Wall, Bowers, Howarth, and Carter.

Burnley News - Saturday 15 May 1920
Everton will today give a trial (amongst other recruits) to Ormerod, an outside right from the Burnley district.  Ormerod has been tried by Burnley. 

May 17, 1920, The Liverpool Echo
Wareing of Everton, has been fixed up by Swindon Town, the transfer being free.

Dundee Evening Telegraph - Tuesday 18 May 1920
Mr. M'lntosh, the Everton manager, -was in Belfast on Saturday, and the object of his visit was Josaph Gowdy, the Irish international centre-forward of Glentoran, who shown fine form of late, and who in the last two games of the season has scored four goals. The transfer fee mentioned was high, and so far no business has been done, but is quite likely that the player will be transfered, Gowdy himself is willing.

Exeter and Plymouth Gazette-Saturday 19 June 1920
Exeter City have secured the signatnre W. Wright, a centre-forward, who played for Tranmere Rovers in the Lancashire Combination last season. His age is 26 years, height 5ft. 8ins., weight 12st. He played for Everton before the war, and afterwards for Paisley St. Mirrien's.

May 22, 1920. The Liverpool Football Echo.
The position of the club in the League table the club in canvassing the members for voting proxies to be used at the annual meeting, for their own purpose, before the directors have had an opportunity of explaining the position, causes us to send out this resume of the season's work, so that the shareholders may have information at their disposal which will guide their actions, in the opening sentence of a report issued by five of the Everton F.C. directors. The report goes on: -

The position of the club in the League table is lower than usual, and this situation is being used by a small section of the shareholders to further an end which they have had in view for some years, namely, to get the control of the club's affairs into their own hands. For some years one gentleman especially has been most active to secure any shares in the club which were offered for sale, and when we say that this gentleman's signature has appeared on the majority of the transfer forms sent into the club' for some time past, and that this gentleman in the past, as well as at present, has taken a leading part in the opposition to the board over a series of years, the object of this search for shares is apparent. There are some-supporters, who have gathered around this gentleman, and the small body would like, through their nominees to control the club and make the directors toe the line to their diotation, and not according to the wishes of the general body of shareholders. These men are not known in the world of sport; they are inexperienced in management of big concerns such as yours, yet they wish to bring to heel (their heel) every member of the board. As an instance of this intolerance one of the retiring directors was asked whether he intended to attend a meeting called by this section, and when he replied that he wanted to remain neutral (whatever that might mean), he was told that unless he presented himself at the meeting, a candidate would be nominated against him, and he would lack the support of this section. He came to heel, attended the meeting, and is being supported. Is it the wish of the shareholders of our great club that their directors should loss their independence, that they should bow to the dictation of this small section? If they do, we cannot stand for it, and will gladly give up our position under such a state of things.

We do not know whether it is done to order, but it is a fact that the proceedings of our board meetings are reported outside, and matters which should be kept a secret are known to people outside. Take one instance out of many, when we were negotiating the purchase of the property which we recently brought, our chairman asked, for obvious reasons, that no reference to our negotiations should be made outside as it might prejudice our chance of purchase. Yet at a subsequent meeting off the board stated that Mr. – one of the leaders of the clique though we were doing a wise thing to purchase the property, that the price we intended to offer was satisfactory. We were told that this gentleman also said that if he had sufficient loose cash he would be quite prepared to buy as an investment. Is it right that important happenings should be given to one or two shareholders and not to the whole? Is it right that information which if known outside the board-room might be to the hurt of the club, should be given to selected and ruling members of the clique? We say emphatically “No.” We also say that when you want an outside committee to assist the directors, it is for the shareholders as a body to appoint such an committee, and to define their duties and not for these self-appointed gentlemen to know what the directors are doing, and assent of dissent, and send their messages to the board through their delegates. An endeavour is made to camouflage this syndicate's real leaders, and push men into the limelight who are likely to give confidence. For instance an old member a man greatly respected, was unexpectedly asked to take the chair at a meeting of the clique. The first information he had that he was desired to preside over the meeting was some time after he arrived at the hall. He only attended the meeting out of curiosity, and did not look upon himself as being anything more than a visitor, and eventually became the chairman of that particular meeting. He has been-menstroned in the press at the chairman of the syndicate, this to give the latter body a tinge of respectability, but when the syndicate in order to further use this gentleman, asked him, through one of their party to nominate their candidates he, when writing the notice, did not remember the formula. He had to have it. Where did he send for it? To a public house, where a very active leader of the syndicate lives. The particulars came. But the chairman found that those, whose who were using him for their own purpose had not told him who would second the nomination. He had again to send to the public house, and a seconded was sent on. Surely it is not the desire of the shareholders that our great club, which was built up to greatness before some of these men ever thought of interesting themselves in the game, should be in the hands of this small section, who desire to elect men, who will answer to the crack of their whip, he responsible to them and not to the shareholders generally. We believe that you desire men to govern the club, who will not be cowed down by any syndicate but who will do their duty fearlessly, act as their conscience dictates, and in the end, render an account of their stewardship to the whole body of shareholders, and not a “star chamber of self-appointed and self-interested men who have recently taken an interest in your club, after it reached its present greatness.

It is true we have had a bad season. Are we going to be wretched sportmens, and blame the retiring directors for the club's position? All clubs have had their good and their lean seasons. It happens in the very nature of things. All the First Division Clubs except Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, and ourselves have had to fight their way back into the First Division. The Villa had to play in the test matches to hold their position, and the Rovers would have automatically gone into the Second Division only that the League was enlarged at the end of the season. So that we alone of the clubs have always been safe. The position of the club was naturally of more concern to the directors than to the ordinary shareholders. They felt it keenly. But it was due to circumstances which they could not control, and if this can be proved, why blame the board? Would any reasonable shareholder like to be blamed in such a case? If not, than apply the same rule to your board. For our club there are real reasons for the position we hold. It can be safely said that we have had more accidents to players, and serious accidents, than any other club. It must be admitted that if you can keep a team together and play them regularly you have an infinitely greater chance of winning your games than if you have to continually change your team. The champions of this season practically went through the season with about 13 players. This shows that they escaped injury, and in playing together, match after match, they found touch with each other. Each player knew the strength and weakness of his commdes, and played accordingly. On one Saturday we lost the services of two centre-half backs, and as a result of the injuries the men were out of the team for some time. On the following Wednesday out third centre-half was injured and has played only once since. On another occasion, Weller was severely kicked, and only played once afterwards, and on the day of Weller's injury, Brown damaged his ankle, so both right half-backs were out of action. No one was to blame, yet through these accidents our playing strength was decreased. Right through the season we have been troubled with these accidents. Not trivial affairs, but serious accidents which in three cases at least entailed serious operations. Could any shareholder have prevented this position? It not, why blame the directors? It is clear (1) that our position is due to injuries and sickness. (2) those all-possible steps were taken to strengthen the team, but failed due to the reasons given above. Is it fair or right then to blame the directors with these facts in view or to try to put the blame on the directors who retire from office this season? We appeal to the shareholders to take a reasonable and sportsmanlike view of the situation and act accordingly.

About three weeks ago a small section of the shareholders held a meeting, and we understand that two of your directors attended, and statements were made at the meeting which led those present to believe (1) that there had been continual friction and unfriendliness on the board; (2) that some members of the board have not given reasonable service in the club's interests.

Both of these propositions are untrue. You have never had a more harmonious board during the history of the club. One of the retiring directors is Mr. Davies, who has served the club for well nigh thirty years. When it required service morning, noon, and night, Mr. Davies readily gave his time and experience. When financial responsibility was necessary he took it. Through all the years he has given whole-hearted service to the club, and in ready, willing, and able to continue that service. Is he, after such service, which has helped to build up your club to its present eminence to be thrown away like a used rag, or is he to be honoured as he would be by any reasonable body of men? Neither of the gentlemen nominated in opposition to him can claim a tithe of his experience or interest in the well-being of the club. As to Mr. Halsall he has been on your board for six years. He was one of the founders and treasurer of the Tranmere Rovers Football Club. Through many years he stood by the club until it stands the fore most club in the district, after the leading First Division clubs. Mr. Halsall has been a member of the Wirral F.A. and the Liverpool County F.A. for over twenty years. His experience through this is invaluable to your club. Can either of his opponents claim such experience.

Dr. Baxter does not sign this circular, as, owing to circumstances, which have from time to time been explained, he has not been able to attend many of out matches or meetings for some years. The signatories to this circular feel the unfairness of the attack made on the retiring directors. They hold that no blame attaches to the board for our position, but that if blame is at all, blame it is on the whole board and not upon the gentleman who, due to the accident of rotation, are retiring this year. They are therefore, prepared to resign should they not obtain the support of the shareholders in the election of the retiring directors. It is a shame that in this year, when in all of our activities, social, politics, business, and sport, everything has been so much upset, and normal conditions never reached, and when in addition to this, your club has been so much handicapped through accident and illness to players advantage should be taken on this position by the new men who for years have tried to get control of your club after it had been built up to greatness. We ask you to consider the position gravely. It is difficult to build up. It is easy to break down –signed WR Clayton (Chairman), John Davies, H. Halsall, J.G. Davies, R.T. Francis.

May 24. 1920. The Liverpool Echo.
Everton F.C. directors issued their resume on Saturday, and it was published in the “Football Echo” as also the news of the signing of Broome, of Preston. Now have letters from others.

“Shareholders” writes: - I observe that “Vin” has seemed he comments upon the E.F.C. If there were a little change now and again in the nature of his remarks your readers would probably regard him as a reasonable critic, but his tone is –and always was –acrid against the Everton Club. Why does he not discuss Liverpool occasionally? They have had their ups and downs and have invariably carried on smilingly taking the good with the bad as Spartans should; but they have been in the second division more than once, and there have been matters upon which a newspaper might comment; but “Vin” never has a word to say against them. On the other hand he has always been antagonistic towards Everton. Why? For all genuine supporters of Everton there is the very solid consolation that the unchanging bitterness of his attack (if they can be dignified by such a name) must cause your reasonable readers to ignore his comments, yet I feel I must protest against his later article. Anyone with the least intelligence knows the reason for Everton's weakness during the past season. Had there been no accidents to players or anything like an average number of accidents, Everton would have finished in a good position. Any decent writer would be sympathetic and not criticise unfairly. “ Perplexed” writes –I seldom miss buying the “Football Echo,” as I enjoy its many sports features. The articles are well written, the people who write them knew their subject. However, there is a blot. The partisanship of “Vin” is a matter of comment talk. He has never had a word of praise for the Everton Football Club during the years that he has written for your paper. How is this? The club has always been in the first flight, yet “Vin” has never had a good word to say either about the club or its directors. What does he know of the shareholders? Who gave him authority to air his argument? Ask “ Fairplay.” The men he names makes us laugh Why does he not nominate directors for other clubs.

A lover of the Local” says- I was sorry to see you allowing the gentleman to make an attack on one of the Everton youngsters. We should not attempt to belittle his intended career. I saw him play against South Liverpool; he scored the only goal. Another boy (McGrea) is a local, and not yet 17, and I believe was sighed by Everton when 15 and 3 months. He was the only real good football in the Everton forwards besides Kearslake. I was told he (McGrea) scored all the five goals against Marine for Everton A, and he scored for Everton Reserves against Aston Villa and played in five matches for Everton Reserves before he was 16. I consider it is about time we started to give our own local lads a chance.

May 25 1920. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
Everton have secured the transfer of David Reid of the Distillery Club, Belfast, who played centre forward for the Irish League against the English League last November, the transfer fee is said to be £1,500.

May 27, 1920. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
The Football Association Council meeting on next Monday next will be asked to approve that Jack Sharp the Everton and Lancashire Cricketer sit on the directorate of either Liverpool or Everton.

May 27 1920. The Liverpool Echo.
“Old Shareholders” writes –“Win” is the best friend the Everton players and their hundred thousand clientele have had for many years –and perpetual thorn in the side of an unwieldy board (five one way four the other). All “Vin” wants, judging from his writings, is a capable pull-together board, one that the players and supporters can depend upon. More power to his pen. Proxies are the best reply to the Everton circular.

The Alec Dick Fund continues to grow steadily, and to the list already named in this column must be added £1 10s from George Dobson and two friends of Alec.” Mr. Dobson the old-time full back, in chatting, bore everybody's wish that Alex would be eased in his pain. Alec and Dobson used to pair together, and the curiosity of their pairing was the fact that when they were not in the same team Alec Dick, in collision with Dobson had a nasty break, and as soon as Dick got better he transferred over to Dobson's club, and the pair “lived together” as backs for many a day.

June 2, 1920. The Liverpool Echo
“We trust the shareholders have duly digested the long drawn screed of the chairman's secret quintet,” says the “coalotionists.” Circular to Everton shareholders, and it goes on to say. The Everton board during the past season has been practically dominated by the chairman and whose who have meekly followed him whenever he chose to pull them. This majority utterly failed to recognises Everton's position at the beginning of the season, when palpable weakness were repeatedly pointed out to them. Evidently they considered that the club was efficiently represented at full back and centre forward, not to intention other positions, which palpably required immediate strengthening. Even when the club's out-look was almost hopeless, this majority had to be driven into taking action, whereupon they secured certain budding internationals by the way, whose names need not be mentioned. They are all well known to the shareholders. As the chairman stated at the recent smoking concert, the had brought the club to its present proud position, i.e. just missed relegation to the second Division. It was only by the determined perseverance of the minority members that the club secured Downs, a bit of business, which saved Everton from dire disgrace. There has never been a less harmonious board in the history of the club than the present one. We commend this statement Speciality to the chairman's notice because he or at least says he has, a different opinion. The minority members from the start of the season were keen on acquiring first-class players at any cost, and there were some available at that time; other clubs got them, but Everton were over-ridden by a majority that decreed otherwise. And these directors are again asking for the shareholders' support. The Everton Club was once respected by all football clubs in the country; we should like the signatories to the circular to hear the truth on the matter now; they are evidently as up to date in this respect as in their ideas of the club's necessitous requirements for first class players. In one League match last season the team as chosen by this majority was the laughing stock of the spectators. “Is this Everton?” They said. The syndicate candidates simply could not do worse than the “circular” five why not give them a chance of doing better? As is stated in the circular, we ask you to consider the position gravely. We prefer to leave personalities out of the question. The chairman has proved himself an expert at this business and he is therefore entitled to all the honours arising therefrom. We are seriously concerned with the reputation of the Everton club not only from a football point of view, but also as regards its consideration by the other League organisations in the country. The chairman's clique have toppled it from its pedestal; we intend to replace it on a firmer basis than ever, and we have sufficient concert in ourselves to know that we can do it. In the meantime we shall continue to extend a warm welcome to all shareholders desirous of handling in proxies. Our aims and intentions are too widely known to need repetition here, but the resignation to the “circular” five would, in our opinion be the salvation of the Everton Club.

Re Everton Football Club “Ockums” writes: - As a spectator, and not a shareholder, I would like to voice my opinion on the above. I have regularly attended the home matches of Everton this season, and in only one match, that versus Aston Villa, did I receive value for money. Each time I went I paid for a grand stand seat, and at the conclusion of every match I came away disgusted, declaring I would never attend again yet, I always turned up in the hope of seeing something better. There was disquisition in the camp. This was especially annoying, as there was certainly much genuine ability among the players. Way as one wing allowed to go on in disagreement so long? Was there not a tactician among the board.

June 12, 1920. The Liverpool Football Echo.
Joe Donnachie yesterday signed for Blackpool Football Club. The seasiders have done a good strike of business, Donnachie is in the elderly class of footballer, but he has this important faster, and he makes up for loss of speed by his tact's and his dribbling. Rarely does he wast a ball, and his centres are not hard-plugged, but lobbing being his method. Donnachie's career has included a number of clubs; he left Scotland for Everton, and after a long spell he took up his quarter at Oldham, where he helped the Athletic to gain victorious in the League and Cup. This was when Oldham played “lady” Woodger, Walters, etc. When war broke out Donnachie started with Everton, afterwards help Liverpool, with whom he had a difference regarding playing on either extreme wing, and finally went back to Everton, it needs a man of his experience and ability to “tone” Blackpool, who are fiery in attack without being effective when needed in front of goal.

June 12 1920. The Liverpool Football Echo
Facts and comments recently appearing in these notes concerting the Everton F.C. management must be taken as referring to the management as a whole; any praise or onus must be spread over the board, and let the biamabe partice pick out the hats that fit. The recent Donnachie champions letter's appeals to one as ringing very true. Joe's case is a rather sad one, for he played some great games during the war. And last season too, only that the Blues' inside man were so often at fault in failing to finish the work. The day Everton were succumbing to Birmingham, Joe was putting up a great game at Anfield against the Reds' Reserves, yet he only got one further show in the League team, after January 10. Outside wingmen, by the way are not much use in the reserves team to act the part of “coach.” This is rather a job for the half-back or inside men. Everton's some-times reserve left wing of Joe and Kearslake (dubbed Carslake by the “boys”) was a sight for the gods –a beautiful blend with the first-named getting the shock of his left should more than the odd pass come his way.

m. Clayton is a strong man, a born fighter and a hard line hitter, particularly on the platform and little less so on paper. But somehow he appeals to many as one who rules with the rod of iron; that played, so to speak, fear rather than love him. Approver Mr. Davies sen, it is quite true that he has served the club for nigh thirty years, but isn't that just one reason why he might honourably declare his long innings closed at this juncture and give one of the deserving fieldsman a chance of knocking up a run or two. For instance, Jack Taylor's record for Everton will best comparison for sound judgement, work and service with that of any other footballer in the country, but even a Taylor wasn't allowed to go on for ever in an Everton jersey. This was probably the real reasons why men like Messrs Coates and Crawshaw disappeared from the Everton board –length of service. Besides, the Davies family is at present dually represented –father and son –and the advice and judgement (ripened through long experience of the former could surely be obtained, though leaving him free from office care and activities –the latter an important item in these days of hustle. One holds no brief for the syndicate party –never has done, for the unwisdom of displacing sound workmen (minus any semblance of snobbery) was reiterated when such as Messrs Kirkwood and Bainbridge were removed from the Everton board-room. The question was asked last week how are such as Messrs Gibbons and Sawyer going to better things. The question might now be raised how could they very well worsen things? For surely Everton touched bottom as nearly as makes no matter last winter. With regard to the Everton players' performances, can anyone truthfully sat that the man appealed to them on all occasions as entering into the fray with what whole-heartedness and enthusiasm which are so essential, if success is to come? Rather did it strike the eye (by their attitude and the accruing results) that they were not a harmonious whole were not a happy blend, and seemed sort of self-conscious that certain round pegs occupied square holes and vice verse. One well-known player was blamed because he worked his partner too hard? And candidly, had such as Gault, Chedgzoy, and Clennell a happy run taking the season as a whole. Only two of the men who began the season were in the side that finished it, and neither of these occupied his original position. Really when you come to look at the season from A to Z, the wonder was how Everton escaped Division Two. That was undoubtedly their smartest performance.! It is ever safe to say that when a board is not a happy family, it does more to upset a team than half a hundred accidents to players throughout a season. Querry –Were the Everton board a happy family? And did they all get the right side of their players. With regard to benefit' payments Everton were not alone in doing out heavily, Newcastle for example last winter paying away £4,087. I was responsible for its (Everton's) transfer from Anfield to Goodison”-Vide Mr. Clayton. One wonders where men like the late George Mahon, Messrs, Griffiths, Atkinson, etc come I, and last but by no means least Dr. Baxter, who did not a little in providing the financial sinews of war, so essential when the Everton tents had to be pitched on the old Thistle F.C. ground. The secret of the club's success in those early days at Goodison, and for long years (in fact the secret of every club's success) lines in the” pulling together” both on the board and on the field of play. Men want proper and judicious handling to get the best of them, just as a racehorse does, and club matters want similar treatment. Men of backbone are necessary, and just as necessary are tactful men. We want too, men possessing good powers of judgement; men who are not only able to tell a first class player when they see him, but also first class players in the making. And having got the cogs to fit nicely we want men capable of keeping the machinery so oiled that it will work smoothly. The best way to accomplish this is for the Everton people at the coming “meet” to sink party and personal differences, and go for the “very best” –first on the board, and then, through the board, on the field of play. They might even do worse than co-opt Messrs, Bee, Vin and Studmarks as a subsidiary trio? Nuff said.

June 19, 1920. Western Times
Exeter City have signed on another centre forward in W. Wright, who played for Tranmere Rovers last season, in the Lancashire Combination. His age is 26 years, height 5ft 8ins, weight 12st. He played for Everton before the war, and afterwards for Paisley St Mirren's. Manager Chadwick says he is a good goal getter,” and in last season's reports he frequently received special mention for good work, as “Wright, the Tranmere centre played a fine game, and scored two goals.

Exeter and Plymouth Gazzette-Saturday 19 June 1920
Exeter City, have secured the signature of W.Wright a centre forward, who played for Tranmere Rovers in the Lancashire Combination last season. His age is 26 years, height 5t 8ins, weight 12st. He played for Everton before the war, and afterwards for Paisley St. Mirren.

June 24 1920. The Liverpool Echo.
Mr. W. R. Clayton, Everton F.C, Chairman writes: -
I have read what purport to be a reply from your contributor, “Vin” to a letter, which I addressed to you, and which appeared in your issue of 5 th inst. His letter does not reply to my communication at all. He does not reply to any of the points, which I raised in my letter, and for all of which I gave evidence. His letter consists of a series of statements which, in every cases, are contrary to fact. Except on one matter, he offered no evidence to support any statement which he makes, consequently what he says is of no value, and I do not, therefore, propose to waste your space and examine them in this letter. I will, however, deal with all the points that he raises at the meeting, which is to be held on Friday of this week. I will be able to put him right where he is wrong. In only one point does he offer evidence. He extracts a sentence of mine from its content, and them he offers evidence, which has nothing to do with the point I raised. This is usual with controversialists of his kind. However, all this can be put right at to-morrow's meeting. I notice he propose to attend with a “heart and a half” I shall be glad to see him, as I an sure the members generally will. I hope it will not be like his “plucky” which was conspicuous by his absence at our last annual meeting when he had an opportunity of attending, and asking his questions and air his grievances. I note the questions, which he desires, met to answer. I shall answer these questions and any other he cares to put when he asks them from the floor of the hall to-morrow. Your correspondent “Studmarks” refers to my letter, and extracts just one sentence from its content. I will give “Studmarks” in the statement; I shall make to-morrow a little insight into the history of the club, which will show him how dangerous a little knowledge, is. “Studmarks” hints that there have been differences on the board, and then deducts from that hint because of these differences the players have been led not to give of their best to the club. I presume your correspondent has some reason for making the statement as to the differences of opinion on the board, otherwise he ought not even to have hinted at same. I shall be glad if he will let me know prior to the meeting what is in his mind on this point, when these differences of opinion, which he alleges, showed themselves and on what question and how they affected the play of the players of our club. At the meeting of to-morrow is a most important one, and as I shall be glad to give any information on the affairs of the club to any shareholders, and as I further know of my own knowledge a number of shareholders have given proxies because of untruthful statements which have been made to them (I Know this, because shareholders have come to one and found out the truth and have withdrawn their original proxies and given a vote in my favour), I am wishful there shall be a large attendance of shareholders at the meeting, as they may learn the truth as to the club'' affairs and act accordingly.

June 26, 1920. The Liverpool Daily Post and Mercury
On a requisition Everton F.C. shareholders met last night at Central Hall to consider the affairs of the club. Mr. W. R. Clayton was in the chair, and there was a large attendance of shareholders. Mr. Clayton said the meeting had been convened because of an unscrupulous Press campaign against the board. If he was to be subjected to the vile statement in one of the Liverpool evening papers he would have no more to do with football. Hundreds of men had spoken of the utter abhorrence they had of the comments made. Interruptions came frequently, numerous questions being asked and it was only with difficulty that Mr. Clayton could make his speech heard. Mr. Clayton who spoke of alleged differences between players denied that the players had grievance one with the other and said that football cost him thousands of pounds. He referred to the injuries to players and said the club had seen ninety-seven players during the season with a view to strengthening the side. Mr. Cuff, the former secretary of the club addressed the meeting, and denied that he had absented himself from duties quoted arrangements made and declared that the Chairman had not told the meeting that the period he referred to was the close season of 1918. Mr. Cuff testifies to the value of the ex-directors Messrs Kirkwood, and Bainbridge. Questions were asked and resolutions, mostly out of order' were submitted. Finally the Chairman replied to a set of questions amid considerable interruption. Some shareholders left the meeting and after Mr. John Davies Jun., had spoken Mr. Clayton declared the meeting closed. It had lasted from 7.30 till ten o'clock.










May 1920