Everton Independent Research Data
SHAREHOLDERS MEET
June 6, 1952. The Liverpool Echo
Ranger’s Notes
Judging from the reaction of the audience at last night’s meeting of Everton shareholders, called to support the candidature of Messrs W.J. Sawyer, R.A. Joynson, and R.E. Searle in opposition to the retiring directors the question of co-options to the board is still a sore topic with many shareholders. Protests against co-option drew applause from the 50 or so shareholders present as also did a suggestion from the body of the hall that the club should be asked to return to the one-man one vote principle. The meeting was joisted out of its calm and sedate progression only at one period when a shareholder who stated he had several questions to ask was apparently set on making a long speech as well. When the audience became rather restive the Chairman (Mr. G.A. J. Parrington) requested him to put his questions without further delay. After objecting to the ruling that he could not continue his speech, the speaker gathered up his coat and hat and took his departure under continuous protest delaying for a moment at the floor to fire a parting shot of advice to those present to “vote for Dr. Baxter for he is a good man.” Prior to this the meeting had been addressed by all three candidates each being given a quiet and attentive hearing without interruptions. Mr. R.E. Searle a former director, said it had been his intention not to seek election again. He had been much happier last season sitting in the shareholders stand without responsibilities and would have been content to continue that way had not the question of co-option been brought to the front again by what had happened in the past few months. That was something on which he felt strongly. He also alleged that something like £60,000 had been “frittered away” of recent years without the directors being able to step in. Mr. W.J. Sawyer, who is also president of the Shareholders and supporters Federation, maintained that Everton had been on the downward track since the war. The directors had to accept responsibility for that and he stood for full directorial control. Mr. Sawyer, who has been an Everton shareholder for 32 years said he had agreed to stand only because his sponsors fell that his years of experience in sport and recreation affairs would be of benefit to Everton. The view was expressed by Mr. Joynson that the total of retained professional players was larger than was necessary and that the Everton staff as constituted today was not good enough to win quick promotion to the First Division. Answering a question regarding one-man-one vote Mr. Searle said he agreed with that principle, but it would only result in shares being put in the name of nominees. He was willing to sell shares to anybody who would like them.
CRITIC OF EVERTON CIRCULAR
June 10, 1952. The Liverpool Daily Post
By Leslie Edwards
In view of the Everton F.C directorial elections the following letter from Mr. W.H. Sawyer, President of the Everton Shareholders and Supporters Federation is of special interest. No doubt the Everton shareholders Association will wish in due course to reply to points made and when they do this column will be open to them. One of their points would undoubtedly be that although the club a overdraft at the moment is so large it is covered many times over, by their enormous assets notably those contained in their ground their players and the not inconsiderable amount of property they own.
Mr. Sawyer writes;-
“I have now read the circular letter which had been issued on behalf of the Everton F.C Shareholders Association, an organization which I understand represents a small proportion of the club’s 600 or more shareholders. The committee of the recently formed Everton F.C. Shareholders and Supports Federation, of which I am president, has endeavored to avoid being drawn into the field of controversy with the old association but having regard to the assertions now made and the Press publicity given I feel obliged to offer the following comments;-
(1) The circular urges strong support for the three retiring directors. It is indeed passing strange that no reference is made to the fact that Mr. J. Taylor (one of the two persons signing the circular) is also a candidate for one of the three seats on the directorate.
(2) The board has never to my knowledge refused through the medium of the press the statements made by ex-director R.E. Searle and H.R. Williams regarding director status and managerial control.
(3) I am not cognizant of the fact that any statement has been made from which it could be inferred that there still existed to feud on the board. Shareholders like myself must have noticed that only eight of the nine directors of the club signed a letter dated 9th May, 1952 which invited support for Mr. Green, Dr. Baxter, and Mr. Sharp. Two of the eight signatories were co-opted to the board during the past year and hold no mandate from the shareholders while three of the remaining six signatories were the retiring directors. One of the directors did not sign- I am left to wonder why!
(4) According to the circular the assets of the Everton club are second to none in the county. Nevertheless the balance-sheet as at 3rd May, 1952 as certified by the auditors shows that the company had a liability in respect of a bank overdraft of £17,466 11s 9d while cash in hand stood at the very low figure of £72,13 7d.
(5) It would be interesting to have the name and qualifications of the amateur clairvoyants who can foresee disaster if any of the candidates in opposition to the retiring directors where elected to the board. The once proud Everton has become under the present regime just a Second Division club. It is for the shareholders, in their wisdom to decide whether or not new men shall be elected to the board to assist in the vital and urgent resuscitation of the club.
“Incidentally I might mention that it is intended to deal fully with the circular-letter at a meeting which is to be held in the Law Association Rooms at 730 p.m. on Thursday, 19 June, and to which shareholders will be invited.
CALL TO SIGN ON NEW PLAYERS TO RESTORE EVERTON’S GLORY
JUNE 20, 1952. The Liverpool Daily Post
Federation Seek Change in Election of Directors
Down into the Second Division two seasons ago went the once proud football club of Everton. And ever since then various organizations of shareholders and supporters have been endeavoring to rectify the wrongs. Last night the recently formed Everton Shareholders and Supporters Federation –which should never be confused with the Everton shareholders Association –called a meeting of shareholders and then called for “less dictatorship and more democracy” in the methods whereby directors are elected to the Board who rules the destiny of Goodison. Next Thursday three retiring director will apply for re-election to the Everton Board. Last high at the Federation’s meeting eighteen shareholders listened to three man of knowledge on the affairs of football appeal for a change in the election of those directors. The three retiring directors of the Board and one additional nominee will be supported by the Everton Shareholders Association. The Federation hope that Messrs W,H. Sawyer, R.A. Joynson and R.E. Searle a former member of the Board will be elected.
Key men Wanted
Country Councilor W.Wall was in the chair. And quickly he dispelled any hopes of fears from the eighteen present hat he was going to deliver into the trials and tribulations of Everton” but “if you were in business and that business was failing you would want to know the reason why.” The he called on Mr. Searle who said he thought it quite unlikely that Everton would ever get back to the First Division until they had two or three key men. Plaintively Mr. Searle recited the Everton tale of woe as he saw it sometimes from the directors box “It was horrible to watch the faces of the supporters” he said. Mr. Searle like the other speakers was set against the introduction of co-opted members to the Board. And he said up till fairly recently the Shareholders Association have always been against co-option of directors. Then a member of the Association threw over the principles” and himself became a co-opted member. Since that time the Shareholders Association had accepted the principle of co-option. For the fifty thousand Everton supporters Mr. Searle pleaded “We must give them a little better than we have been giving them.”
Overdraft £23,988
Before calling on Mr. W.H. Sawyer, Councillor Wall said Co-Operation is most undemocratic. It is nearly dictatorial. Mr. Sawyer the Federation’s expert on finance and company law –he is a qualified accountant and secretary –devoted most of his time up the finances of the club. But he also referred to doings of the established directors, the three retiring directors and another nominee, who was a leading light in the Everton Shareholders Association. There was no questioning the knowledge and ability of Mr. Sawyer. For thirty two years he has been a shareholder of the club. He has also been active in the administration of junior football and many other spheres of sport. Lets be frank, said Mr. Sawyer. “I am no “yes man.” The profit and loss account for 1951 showed a loss of £7,209 after taking into account income tax reserve set aside but not needed of £3,600. The club had a bank overdraft of £23,988.
Goodwill Asset
The accounts as on May 3 this year said Mr. Sawyer, showed a profit of £7,377 after taking into account an income tax reserve of £3,900 not needed and £4,000 received from the transfer of players. Some of that profit maintained Mr. Sawyer, should have been used for the buying of players instead of being used for “the jumping up of profits.” Then he referred to the assets of the club -£70,936. But he alleged only £100 of that was in liquid form. Before next season started the bank-overdraft of the club “might be oh a higher level. “Everton” said Mr. Sawyer have one great asset, the goodwill of their loyal supporters, if we lose that goodwill disaster will replace the triumphs of the past.” Mr. Sawyer paused. Then he went on. “We want men of vision to run the club.” We want new blood on the Board. “It was not Mr. Sawyer who referred to his father’s past as a shareholder –and a very early one –of Everton. It was Councillor Wall. He said that Mr. Sawyer’s father was one of the original shareholders. A little later Mr. Sawyer corrected that. He “wished to be completely honest.” His father he said, was an early shareholder.
Would Save Income Tax
The last of the three contenders who had a say in the Goodison affair was Mr. R.A Joynson. We have seen good football, bad football. Most of it was mediocre he said. Like Mr. Sawyer and Mr. Searle, he pleaded for a policy which would ensure that Everton would acquire new players. Not many new players. Unless we have two or three key players we have no hope of regaining our position in First Division football. It appeared, said Mr. Joynson that the present policy of the Board was not to buy new players. And the policy was perhaps, arrived at because the club had an overdraft. “But that never stopped them from buying new players in the past. Five players –they remained nameless –had been brought to grace the Goodison ground, said Mr. Joynson. He added; “Without these five players we should have been in the Third Division. I cannot recall any club which has not had to resort to the purchase of players. Two or three new players are absolutely essential.” Everyone knew that new players cost a lot of money. But they also brought increased gates. And he said –with a brief reference to Mr. Sawyer the financial expert – there would also be a saving in income tax if new players were brought.
Two Questioners
He objected to any suggestion that directors, shareholders and supporters “a feuding.” Then he called for an alteration in the Articles of Association of the club. Under the latest Act co-opted members would have to have their appointment confirmed by shareholders. Under the club’s present Articles people co-opted to the Board did not have to have the approval of the shareholders. The battle call of the federation was sounded by Mr. Joynson; “If you are satisfied with the present situation then your duty is to the Board. If you are not content then it is your duty to make a change.” Concillor Wall asked for questions. He also asked for the names of the questioners. There were two questioners. And one could not give his name “for reasons which I will explain to you later.” Mr. L. B. Osborn asked; “Are any persons co-opted to the Board related to persons who are directors of the Board. But Mr. Osborne did not get an answer. Both Councilor Wall and Mr. Searle said they did not wish to bring personalities into the business. “What we want” said councilor Wall are questions relating to the best way in which we can get the club back into the First Division. The questioner who cloaked his identity was concerned with the generosity of banks. Would, in the present economic situation of the country banks be prepared to grant overdrafts for the purchases of football players? And the Federation’s financial expert Mr. Sawyer assured him that banks would not be so generous. They were restricted. And they were not particularly concerned with purchasing power to bring new players to Goodison.
“No Feud” Hope
Mr. Searle was not concerned with overdrafts. “If there is any managing directors today who does not have an overdraft would be pleased to shake him by the hand.” But he believed with sound business sense Goodison could afford to buy one or two new players. Councillor Wall, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Searle and Mr. Joynson will be at the meeting next Thursday when three retiring directors hope to return to the board. Mr. Joynson Mr. Searle and Mr. Sawyer hopes that they themselves will return to the board. They all hope there will be “no feud at next week’s meeting. “
EVERTON; “MORE REALISTIC POLICY NEEDED”
June 25, 1952. The Liverpool Daily Post
To The Editor “Daily Post.”
Sir – It is not my customary practice to reply to correspondents who do not reveal their identity but I feel that I cannot completely ignore the letter appertaining to Everton which appeared under the non-de-plume of Poke Face.
Your correspondent need not be unduly distressed about the attendance at the meeting on Thursday last because this is certainly no criterion that the efforts of the Everton Shareholders and Supporters Federation are proving unsuccessful. The meeting to which he refers was arranged primary to give shareholders who were unable to attend a previous meeting another opportunity to hear, if they so wished the three opposition candidates. Apparently this gentleman did not attend otherwise he would have heard my views fully expounded in what has been described as a forceful and reasoned speech. I certainly did not advocate a reckless financial policy, nor did I suggest than a key player or players which many supporters consider necessary could be obtained for a song. In considering the profit (or surplus) on the year, however, I reminded the shareholders who were present than no payment had been made on account of transfer fees and at the same time I said it was logical to suppose that Everton at some time in the future must be concerned in transfer deals. I then asked if it would not have been more prudent to have transferred the £4,000 (received in respect of transfer of players to other clubs) to a reserve fund for this purpose rather than jump up the year’s profits. Your correspondent may rest assured that I am very conscious of the present financial aspect of the Everton club, and that I am aware of the economic policy which is being a developed by the Government –also its application to the credit policy of the banking system. “Poker Face” who does not disclose his credentials stated that the directors in their efforts to retrieve the club’s position deserve the fullest support, I submit that the members of the board must accept full responsibility for the position in which the club now find itself. They have had a fair innings but their stewardship has brought unsatisfactory results. The time has arrived when men capable of formulating a more realistic domestic and financial policy should find places in the board room. At great responsibility rests on the 600 or more shareholders who are virtually trustees for many thousands of loyal supporters. By their votes on Thursday they will be called upon to decide whether the present directorial policy has been, and is in the best interests of the club or whether it would be desirable to elect new men with records of voluntary service and possessing the requisite experience knowledge and qualifications to guide the once proud Everton back to its rightful sphere. W.H. Sawyer, 16 Hillcrest Road, Crosby.
EVERTON MEETING
June 25, 1952. The Liverpool Echo
Ranger’s Notes
Everton F.C’s annual meeting of shareholders takes place tomorrow evening at the Law Association Rooms, Liverpool, at 7.30. the three retiring directors (Messrs E. Green, C.S. Baxter and J.C. Sharp_ seek re-election and there are four additional nominees “of these Messrs W.H. Sawyer, A. Joynston, and former director R. E. Searle are being supported by the shareholders and supporters Federation. Mr. J. Taylor chairman of the original Shareholders Association has also been named as a candidate. Last year’s meeting was a lengthy and rather lively one. It may be the same again, with the vexed question of co-options to the board taking premier place as a bone of contention. Voting for directorial representation for many years had always been by ballot, not show of hands. The method is decided by vote at each meeting but it is sure to be by ballot again. The time limit for depositing proxies at the club offices expired last night so that nothing more can now be done by either side to further aims.
EVERTON PROXY VOTE ALLEGATION
June 27, 1952. The Liverpool Daily Post
Forged Says A Shareholder
The battle of Goodison Park went a stage further last night when three retiring directors were returned with not very wide majorities after an allegation had been made that one of the proxy votes was forged. Up for re-election were Mr. E. Green, Dr. C.S. Baxter and Mr. John Sharp. Ranged against them were Mr. R.E. Searle, Mr. R.A. Joynson and Mr. W.H. Sawyer. After an annual meeting which was at times noisy –notably when the club’s present policy was attacked –the voting figures were Mr. Green 1,331; Dr. Baxter, 1,311; Mr. Sharp, 1,313, Mr. Searle, 973; Mr. Joynson 958; and Mr. Sawyer, 955. The claim that one proxy vote had been forged was made by a shareholder shortly before voting began. After the meeting Mr. Ernest Green (chairman) said; “There will be an investigation into any specific case brought forward added; “Of course the proxy forms will be retained for the length time required by law.” The earlier part of the meeting was taken up by a lengthy report from Mr. Green who defended the club’s policy of encouraging young players trained in Goodison methods. He and his co-directors were not prepared to “flounders in the transfer market at great expense to no good end. Part of his report appeared to some of the shareholders to have little to do with football and quite a lot to do with the state of business and washing machines. Mr. Green let it be known that the clubs now owned fifty-nine houses and a laundry equipped at considerable cost. Knotty point No 2 of the meeting was the objection by a certain section to co-option of directors and Mr. Green was asked if he had ever said that there should be no co-option. He replied. We do not say that we will co-opt or not co-opt it all depends on circumstances.” And that was the only answer given to the questioner Mr. L.B. Osborne who not satisfied, instead that he be given a more specific answer. For Mr. Osborne was quickly told to sit down as the longer section of the meeting. That gave Mr. Green an opportunity rapturously to describe the abilities of two directors who had been co-opted to the Board, the harmonious atmosphere which he said prevailed at all the Board meetings –in fact, we have never had a happier Board.
£7,000 “Walk-Out”
Certain public houses in Liverpool have recently been freely supplied with small but bring pamphlets on Everton policy. The anonymous authors had suggested that directors did not direct and the further appeared that the fortunate’s of the club were solely in the hands of Mr. Cliff Britton the manager. “Mr. Britton is not running this club, said Mr. Green. “The whole suggestion is utterly ridiculous. You all know me – I’M no dummy. Do you think I would sit here and allow a stipendiary official to run the club? Referring to the club’s overdraft Mr. Green said “We have lived nearly always in a state of overdraft. In 1930 it was £40,000 but we recovered from it. Our present overdraft has been reduced to £17,000 since the balance sheet was printed. By the end of next season it was not beyond the bounds of possibility that the overdraft would be completely cleared. The club lost £7,000 last season through two players walking out to non-league clubs. There was nothing Everton or any other League club could do about it. “People ask me, said Mr. Green “Why there are so many Irishman on the books. There is no answer to that question. These things just happen. Three players from Ireland –Donovan, O’Neill and Cummings –cost the club nothing.
No Five-Year Plan
When Mr. Green had finished speaking after fifty-four minutes Mr. Britton was called to view a supplementary report; He began by denying the existence; at Goodison Park of what had been termed a five year plan. “Our only policy,” he said “is to get a team that will fulfil our hopes and wishes in the shortest space of time. Last season had been an experimental season, with many young players “blooded” into League football. He thought the Everton standard in league games was as high as any of teams in their League. The future he thought was encouraging. They had a very young team and many of them were breaking through to the and top.”Wainwright would probably be fit to play next season. All the players, except one Leyland had resigned. If they did buy expensive players they would have to be put in the team, the youngsters would be dropped and that would break their spirit and wreck the broken policy beyond hope of recovery. One ardent shareholders who insisted on knowing why Hickson had been dropped prior to one very important game was treated to a description of the leading growth of young players their temperament and staying power. But he was not told why the players he named had been dropped.
Questions Unanswered
Up to this point there had been a little noise a few complaints –mainly about the heat, in fact it was so hot in the crowded room that one or two of the more elderly shareholders were compelled to ask for more air. During this brief but enlightening spell a shout was heard “You’ll get it later when the windows are broken. But the windows were never broken. The few staunch opponents of policy were brave enough but their supporters were a little timorous and many questions remained unanswered. Among the questions were a request for a block of tickets to be given to a baptism section of the shareholders supporters and a request that the articles of association of the club should be changed to conform to the 1948 Company Art. The first was refused the other was partly granted. Mr. Green promised that Everton’s legal advisers would look into the position with a view of making any necessary changes.
No Scruitineers
There was a request that scrutineers to be allowed to inspect the proxy votes. That was one request refused. During the slight hullabaloo that followed Mr. Green exclaimed “Let us hope that this annual general meeting will become more sedate than they have been in the past. The meeting is not an election meeting. Electioneering has been very thoroughly done. The annual yet together of shareholders and directors was certainly not as some of the meetings in the not too distant past. One thing was made clear Everton intend to retain their policy of encouraging young players –from all parts of the country. They will not indulge in the “risky” expensive transfer market.
ALLEGATION OF “FORGERY”
June 27, 1952. The Liverpool Echo
Everton F.C Shareholders Claims Proxy Given in Dead Man’s Name
By Ranger
An allegation that a forged proxy had been handed in for the Everton directorial election, in the name of a man who had been dead for two years, was made at last night annual meeting of the club’s shareholders. This allegation followed the refusal of the chairman (Mr. Ernest Green) to allow scrutineers representing both sides to inspect the proxies which had been lodged with the club. It was Mr. R. A Joynson, one of three candidates opposing the retiring directors who raised the question of inspection. “There are a number of deceased names on the shareholders register,” he said. “These people cannot vote and I therefore ask that the proxies should be open to the scrutineers. Mr. Green replied that the club’s auditor was in charge of proxies and was guided by the names on the share register. The proxies had been thoroughly gone into by the club’s legal representative as well as the auditor. The board had also considered those which were doubtful and had been as fair as was humanly possible. “We cannot possibly allow the scrutineers to go looking through the proxies he added.
Several voices –Why not?
Mr. Green –For a very same reason. We should not be home until morning. Everything is quite in order.
Shareholders Allegation
It was at this point that the allegation of a forged proxy was made by Mr. R.S. Allan who said “There is one forged proxy. It was the same last year. It had been forged in my father’s name, who has been dead two years.” Mr. Green –You cannot blame the auditor or secretary for that.
Mr. Allan –it is not in the register. It is in the name of the Exorts of T. Allan. This statement was followed by a minor uproar, in which several shareholders jumped to their feet and remarks were buried at the chair from different quarters simultaneously. Among the speakers was Mr. R. Gibbins, son of Mr. W. Gibbins a director of the club. Mr. Gibbins senior did not sit with the rest of the board on the platform but in the body of the hall.
Mr. R. Gibbins said. “Who witnessed that proxy? It should be investigated.”
Order Restored
After a few moments excitement the chairman announced that the matter would be fully investigated and the hubbub gradually quietened down. When order had been restored, Mr. R.A. Joynson said; “I am perfectly satisfied with your explanation.” Prior to this there had been an earlier minor outburst when County Councillor W.Wall chairman of the Supporters Federation had asked that the three nominees opposing the retiring directors should be allowed to address the shareholders. Mr. Green, in refusing, said he did not consider that the annual meeting should be allowed to develop into an electioneering meeting. The electioneering had been done very thoroughly already both by circulars, pamphlets, letters to the Press and canvassing. He hoped that in future their annual gathering would be conducted more sedately than in the past. When Councillor Wall sought to press home his contention, the chairman asked the shareholders to vote by show of hands whether they wished to hear the three candidates. The vote was over-whelming against.
Directors Re-Election
At the conclusion of the counting the chairman announced that the voting had resulted as follows; Mr. E. Green 1331 votes, Mr. J. C. Sharp, 1.313; Dr. C.S. Baxter, 1.311; Mr. R.E. Searle 973; Mr. R. A. Joynson 959; and Mr. W.H. Sawyer, 955. The three retiring directors were thus re-elected for a further three years. Mr. J. Taylor, who had been named as an additional candidate, withdrew his name yesterday morning. After the result had been declared Mr. Parrington a member of the Shareholders and Supporters Federation asked that the proxies should be destroyed, but kept for at least the statutory legal period. Mr. Green –of course they will be kept. What do you think we are?
Chairman’s Review
Prior to the upheavals reported above, the proceedings had been quiet and uneventful for an hour and three quarters Mr. Green in a speech lasting 55 minutes, had given a most comprehensive review of all aspects of the clubs’s affairs past present and future and had expressed pleasure at the attendance of Mr. W.R. Williams the former chairman had assured him, he said despite rumors to the contrary that he had no intention of resigning from the board, a statement which he was very pleased to hear. Mr. Green dealt at length with the unsatisfactory state of the transfer market which he said was largely due to the fact that some players were “seeking to make up by hook or by crook for having lost seven years earning capacity during the war.
Laundry to Transfer
His review of the club’s affairs ranged over almost every possible aspect from such domestic matters as the laundering of players gear to the management of their property –he disclosed that the club now owns 59 houses –the jurisdiction and powers of the manager and the policy of the board in relation to transfer and training young players. The following is a summary of points he made.
Buying Readymade players – This was no guarantee of success. A dozen clubs had spent £100,000 or more in the last three years but were still struggling.
Future Policy –Everton would continue to concentrate on training and coaching their own juniors to fill gaps in the senior sides. “We are making serious methodical and purposeful efforts to lay solid foundations for the future prosperity of the club said Mr. Green.
Confidence in Manager
Emergency meeting –Referring to one anxious period last season the chairman said the directors were so perturbed they held a private emergency meeting without the manager and secretary being in attendance. The outcome was that we took our courage in both hands and determined to continue pursuing the policy upon which we had already embarked. Mr. Green added that he was glad they had done so, otherwise Everton would have been floundering in the transfer market. Now they could see daylight. The directors throughout had always had complete faith in Mr. Britton.
Co-Option –This has long been a vexed tonic Mr. Green taxed about the alleged breaking of previous promises said. “Circumstances alter cases and times today are different. He could make no promise for the future. During the past year it had been felt wiser to fill the vacancies than leave them open. It might not always be so. The board did not themselves always be so. The board did not themselves be so. The board did not themselves make the choice in two cases. The co-opted directors were nominees of the Shareholders Association –men who would fit in with the club’s policy and not cause a split on the board. (A voice –You mean “Yes-men”) Mr. Green denied that there was any desire to make the board a “closed corporation.” The last three directors to join the club were not particular friends of any members of the board. They were excellent men for the job, however, and the club had never had a happier directorate than it had now.
The Board Does Rules
Managerial Responsibility.
Referring to statements that “the manager ran the club,” he said that was perfectly ridiculous “I am not going to sit like a dummy and allow any stipendiary official to do that” he said. “No player is signed or transferred without the consent of the board.”
Bank Overdraft –there was nothing to be alarmed about regarding this. He would not be surprised if it was not wiped off completely at the end of next season.
Loss of Players –Dealing with criticism that certain players had gone into non-league football, and Everton had lost their transfer value Mr. Green said this was a problem causing much concern in all league clubs. Non-League organizations were not limited as to what they could pay, and their inducement were often so attractive that players who had been put on the transfer list were tempted to accept them.
Manager Selects Team
Team Selection –Replying to a question as to who picked the Everton team and who was responsible for dropping Hickson for the match against Bury, Mr. Green said Mr. Britton selected the side. “Anybody can pick holes in the team for one particular match,” he added” but it is far better for one man to choose the team than for nine to be responsible.” He added that Everton’s best seasons in past years had been when one man handled the selection.
Tickets – Replying to Mr. L. B. Osborn secretary of the Supporters Federation he said it was impossible to set aside a block of tickets for big matches for members of the federation.
Irish Element –There was no particular reason why the club had so many Irishman on their books except that the players were good ones. It had just happened. Dealing with this at some length, Mr. Green detailed the many excellent Irish players they had, several of whom had not cost them a penny in transfer fees.
Mr. Britton’s Review
Mr. Cliff Britton the club’s manager, who presented a report of his own supplementary to that of the chairman denied that he had ever had a “five year plan” his only policy had been to fulfill the hopes of directors and shareholders by getting a first class side in the shortest possible time. He though the policy would be justified in the next few seasons. Last winter’s performances had been promising and the outlook today was encouraging. “We have youth in the club he continued” and youth is getting its opportunity which it would not do under a policy of spending. It would be a reckless gamble in the present state of our existing scheme to go into the transfer market. To do so would completely wreck our ideas and it would be impossible to pick up the threads of that policy at some future date if it became necessary. The young players who are trying to get to the top would have their spirit broken and ambitions ruined by having to make way for moneyed signings. Dealing with the dropping of Hickson, Mr. Britton said there was a psychological time in these matters when it was advisable to “rest” a player of include a promisingly youngster to increase his confidence. Last season was largely an experimental one. Obviously he could not go into details regarding an individual case but he pointed out that he spent every day with the players, went on the field with them, and knew their personalities and potentialities.
June 1952