Everton Independent Research Data

 

COALITIONS' REJOINDER TO MAJORITY CIRCULAR.
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.
ANNOYING DISENSION.
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.

NEW PLAYER FOR MONKS, HALL
Widnes Examiner-Saturday June 5, 1920
Monks, Hall club, in their endeavour to secure a “class” team for next season, one worthy of the town, have secured the signature of Samuel Strettle, of Exeter City. “Sammy,” who is a Warringtonian, has seen service with Everton, Chesterfield, and Exeter City, and should prove a good acquisition to Monks, Hall at left full-back.

MR. W. R. CLAYTON’S REPLAY TO “VIN”
The Liverpool Football Echo- Saturday, June 5, 1920
EVERTON LEADER MAKES FURTHER EXPLANATION OF THE SEASON’S FAILURE, AND ANSWER SYNDICATE
My attention has been drawn to the article of your contributor “Vin” in last Saturday’s issue. I quite agree with his initial quotation, and add that it would be well if he grasped the fact that it “is easier to be critical than correct.” I have never come across a write who ignoring facts so frequently as he does, not one who distorts facts, when by accident he condescends to use them. What are the facts of the present position? Mr. Davies, who has served the club for well nigh thirty years, who when financial responsibility had to be taken gladly risked his money, who worked morning, noon, and night in the interests of the club, who has served the club faithfully and well, has to seek re-election. His record will bear favourable comparison for sound judgement, work, and service with that of any other football director in the kingdom. His re-election is being opposed-virulently opposed by a special section of the shareholders, called the syndicate. Why? I have not yet heard any reason for this opposition. It is true that one of the representatives of the so-called syndicate expressed his sorrow to Mr. Davies, because of the opposition, but added that he would have to adopt the policy of the syndicate because they (the syndicate) put him on the board. So he, with others, is working assiduously to prevent the return of Mr. Davies to the board. This is sport! Heaven save the mark! If sport can become so degraded as to treat a faithful representative in this way, then I want to have nothing to do with it. Mr. Halsall also retires with Mr. Davies, and opposition is being offered to his return. Why? Mr. Halsall has served the club well during his six years of office. He brings a keen, well-informed mind to bear on all subjects; he is a prominent businessman; he holds high municipal honours in his native town; he has served over twenty years as club official and member of two football associations-therefore, he has every qualification for his position at Everton. Why, then, is he being opposed? I have only heard of one complaint-namely, that he did not go away to look for players’ last season. When it was proved that Mr. Halsall had made a dozen journeys in quest of players to various parts of England, and mostly at his own expense, the syndicate charge does not hold water. It is curious that although the test of the syndicate is. “How many times have you been away to secure players?” and Mr. Halsall answer twelve, he is opposed. Yet Mr. banks, who only went away five times, is being supported by the syndicate. Why? Is it because Mr. Banks can be “grooved” as the syndicate leaders dictate? It will remembered that I asked Mr. Banks to accompany me to a meeting of the syndicate, and he refused thinking that it would be better for him to stay away. He did, as a matter of fact, attend the meeting, and when, out of curiosity, I asked him why he had changed his mid he told me that Mr. Gibbons had asked him to attend and when he (Mr. Banks) refused, Mr. Gibbons told him that the syndicate would nominate a man in opposition to him and oppose his re-election. This is why Mr. banks attended the meeting; this is why the syndicate are supporting him. Was there ever anything so humiliating? If the majority of the Everton shareholders uphold the terrorism and dictation, I will have none of it.
SYNDICATE NOMINATIONS
Now the syndicate have nominated two gentlemen to oppose Messrs. Davies and Halsall. If the shareholders are going to displace men, they would make sure that they are replacing them with better men. What experience has Mr. Gibbons had in the management of a football club or football players? In my opinion, he is in no way worthy to replace either Mr. Davies or Mr. Halsall. Mr. Sawyer has had some experience, but it is not to be compared with that of either of the retiring directors. How are they going to better things? If the directors are to be impeached for the lack of success of the team, then the whole board should be impeached -not two only. This would have been consistent and could be understood. There is no doubt that the lowly position occupied by the club is due to injuries to the players. Here your contributor “Vin” makes the statement that we “were no more fortunate than the generality of League clubs.” Well, we had 39 serious accidents to our players; three of them in the end necessitating operations. Can he tell me of other clubs suffering as seriously? Let us have facts. He suggests that we delayed paying benefit money due to players, and that this influenced their play! Here, again he should get his facts right. He is unjust and cruel to honourable men when he suggests that any player would go on the field and not do his best. He does our players a gross injustice. The facts are that the directors paid 2,750 pounds last year by way of benefits, taking the players, who had been longest with us. It was indicated that a further batch of payments would be made this season. The directors, not knowing how the public would patronise the game had to be careful in their promises. Football has to be carried on business lines. You can only go so far as your purse will carry you. When it was found that the public were taking a bigger interest in football than ever, and the club could clear off all benefits, we did so, and paid this year a further 3,250 pounds. No other club in Britain has paid so much to their players for benefits during the past, or any two seasons. With reference to “Vin’s” remark re legal agreements with players, anyone having to do with football knows that it is and has been, a rule of the League and Association that when a player is signed, he must have a properly drawn-up agreement, which is legally binding. Where does the necessity of a “K.C.” come in?
Your contributor is attempting to make a ridiculous point in asking why the players have not entertained the directors to dinner. He instances the action of the Liverpool players. It was very nice of Liverpool’s players and a happy thought. But when was it ever done before? When have club’s players entertained their directors? It may be that the reason our players did not entertain the directors is that the directors entertained the players more than once, and you don’t want to be continually entertaining. If the point of his remarks is that there was ill-feeling between the directors and players, he is absolutely wrong, as the best of good feeling existed.
SUSTAINED CRITICISM
Your correspondent suggests that he is not antagonistic to the club, but is only “antagonistic to any board whose system of management is unworthy of the club.” If this is so, then Everton is unfortunate, for at all times his criticism, sustained and bitter, has been directed against the club. During all the years there have been continual changes on the board; but the nasty, bitter criticism of your contributor has never changed. When we won the League championship in 1914-15; when in the season 1918-19 we won the sectional championship there was nothing but bitter and many times personal criticism, and you have Admitted that you have cut out many portions of his contributions because of their virulence. For months your contributor railed at the board because of their alleged unfairness to Mr. Cuff. “Vin” is a shareholder, yet before our last annual meeting he in unsparing language denounced the board for not granting Mr. Cuff more than 50 pounds. If he wanted to apply his own axiom, “first get round facts, then go ahead,” why did he not come to the last annual meeting and ask the question? I would readily have answered him. This did not suit his book, but the week after the meeting he took up his parable again, and at various other times.
Now, I issue a challenge to “Vin.” Let him come to the next annual meeting and ask, I will tell him this- and other things. I see “Vin” thinks Mr. Cuff was “the club’s greatest secretary.” He is entitled to his opinion. I do not know what he knows about the matter, and where he gets his “facts” from, but he is evidently not in agreement with the syndicate’s leader. Mr. Kirkwood was a good director, and “Vin” must thank his friends of the syndicate for Mr. Kirkwood’s departure from the board also the defeat of Mr. Bainbridge. “Vin” does not know sufficient to say what Mr. Cuff or Mr. Kirkwood did in connection with the club. The fact remains that the club was a power in the land. We had brought our ground, were firm on the rock, before either of them was associated with the management of the club. The syndicate commenced operations by displacing Mr. Bainbridge and putting on the board one of their nominees. He was a tremendous failure, eventually disowned by the syndicate.
The leader of the syndicate blows hot and cold, now supporting this man then dethroning him. His mistakes are many. He is now making a mistake in trying to displace two men who have done their duty, and who should be honoured not slighted. I have been longer connected with the club than any member of the syndicate, I have given much time to its affairs many times when I could ill afford to do so), and my connection with the club and the game has cost me a great deal of money. I have always paid for my port. In the very early days, with others, I did not spare myself in any direction when the club’s interests were involved. No one can deny that I give more time than any two directors to the affairs of the club. I do so because I helped to mould it. I was responsible for its transfer from Anfield to Goodison; I saw its growth; I helped it to grow from lowliness to the most respected club in the country; I am proud of the club, and always wish to be; I am proud of the game because I think more than any other, it helps to make for a strong, virile, clean manhood. This is the reason for my interest. I have no personal ends to serve. I would have more personal ease and freedom apart from the management of the club, but I am attached to it because of my close associations. I want the club to continue in its greatness and I ask the shareholders to consider well what they do at this juncture in the history of the club. -W.R.CLAYTON.
Another shareholder writes,-
Some days ago I received a circular from five members of the board, signed by them, and in this way, I knew from whom it came, viz, from a body of men well respected and well known in the realm of sport. It has a reasoned appeal to the shareholders, giving chapter and verse, and proof of every statement made, In though from the boasting of the “syndicate” that they would have substantial replies to make. Instead I have received a revel of nonsense, which does not reply in any single instance to the statements in the directors’ circular. I further notice that they have abandoned their name of “Syndicate,” and now lodge behind a new one of “Coalitionists.” How is this? Is there not anyone connected with this party capable of signing his name? Before I reuse support to the board, which consists of ten who have done their duty to the club, I would have to know who the people are, their names, their position in sport, their agility to control the club. No nameless individuals for me, I support the well-tried and well-known sportsmen who are on the board.
   “Shareholder No 2” writes;-
As “Vin” is a “holder,” let him attend the annual meeting and speak. If he lacks the courage to do this then he merits the contempt the methods have earned for him. One circular is signed by “The Coalitionists.” Who are these? It does not help to enlighten people any by sending out circulars under a non de plume, says “Interested.”
“G.L.” writes;-
Taking an unbiassed view of the whole matter, that issued by the five directors who append their names is straight-forward and clear, whereas the other, signed by “The Coalitionists,” cannot be described as anything but ambiguous and tending to mislead those who have not studied all the points at issue. Would it not have carried more weight had “The Coalitionists” given us their name? Surely they were not ashamed of their own pamphlet? 

STUB MARKS
June 5, 1920 The Liverpool Football Echo
By Louis T. Kelly

A QUESTION AND STILL FURTHER QUESTION
The Liverpool Echo- Tuesday, June 8, 1920
Bee’s Notes
All the city is agog with the discussion arising from the Everton F.C circulars, one signed by five of the directors, and the other by a body signing itself “Coalitionists.” People are asking whether the latter is “The Syndicates.” There sure can be no one doubting that one and the other are the same. Recently, in the words of one officer, I sought to pat two directors upon the back, and then hit the club with my other hand. This is a tilt at me because I said that while the club were bemoaning their luck in injured players, they let go Jefferis. And I further pointed out that the club has signed Downs and Brewster very late on, and otherwise they had not signed anyone, although they must have seen the weakness of the side in September. Mr. Clayton, in a subsequent conversation, said the club had gone for 97 players during the season, and that clubs would not part with players. They had tried their best to get McDonald and others, he said, but if clubs simply would not part, how could Everton be blamed for not getting hold of the men they wanted. I pointed to other clubs getting players, but Mr. Clayton declared that Everton wanted only men who could be dropped right into the first team. I give Mr. Clayton’s statements, and now would like to add whether it was not the fact that the Everton club refused to sign on a class local back who was kept out of his team under exceptional circumstances, the fee being £1,250 -which, as prices went, was quite a reasonable figure.
THE CASE OF DONNACHIE
Permit me (writes “Justice”) through your valuable notes, to voice the grievance of Joe Donnachie with the Everton club. Everton supporters know the valuable assistance Donnachie gave the Everton Club during the war- four seasons good football for nothing. Last season he was left out of the team, not for bad play; but because the team was doing so badly and they had to make changes, and the directors knew he (Donnachie) wouldn’t mind. Donnachie did mind, very much. Then he was told from another source (officially) the reason he was being played in the reserve team was because they were anxious to transfer Mayson, and they wanted him to enable Mayson to make a good show. Now, are not these paltry excuses to make to a player? What about the player’s future? Was it fair to him? Then towards the close of last season, when the club was doing so badly, any dud was turned out in preference to Joe, an experienced man. I call such treatment right down prejudice. In an interview, Donnachie was informed that he was doing great service to the club coaching the reserve team for them, and also made the face known at the shareholders’ meeting. They did not sign Donnachie, though! Joe’s reward for what he has done for the Everton Club was “Thanks for your valuable services, and we shall not require you further.” One director told Donnachie on one occasion that the directors would not forget him. Well, he is still waiting.

BEE’S NOTES
The Liverpool Echo, Wednesday, June 9, 1920
TRANMERE SIGN ROBINSON
Robinson, the Everton forward;
MORE QUERIES
I have read with great interest Mr. Clayton’s epistle to the shareholders, which appeared in last Saturday’s “Echo”, but I note that instead of dealing with material points he pays his attention to your correspondent “Vin” (says “Spion Kop”). I have, therefore, to trouble you once again to ask Mr. Clayton, through your column, the following questions, which, to my mind, are of vital interest to every shareholder in the Everton club;-

  1. Are the five signatories to the now famous circular letter prepared to work in harmony with such other directors as may be duly elected by the votes of the shareholders at the annual meeting whomsoever they may be? 
  2. Will Mr. Clayton please state whether the meeting held on Wednesday week last was a duly convened meeting of all the shareholders of the Everton Football club, or whether it was really called by the five signatories to the circular letter; and, in the latter event, were the offices and staff of the Everton club, used for the purpose of convening that meeting?

Just one word more. Personally have the greatest admiration for the work which Mr. Clayton has done for the Everton Football Club; but surely he will be the first to admit that a time may arrive when gentlemen who have given good service to the club may, from various causes to be suitable as active members of the board? And at the present time the board of any football club cannot afford during this period of reconstruction to carry any but live wires.
I was pleased to read the sensible and straightforward reply to “Vin” by Mr. Clayton, who has been connected with the Everton club so long. I have been an Everton supporter since 1886, and I fancy he was with them then, writes “Old Time.” But there is one point I would like to draw Mr. Clayton’s attention to, and that is that a great deal of the credit for the Everton Club’s strong and honourable position is due to the early players, who did not receive either big wages, or £500 benefits. I refer particularly to the team composed of Joliffe, Dick, Dobson, Corey, Gibson, Higgins, Farmer, Costley, Richards, Fleming, and Briscoe. Personally, I consider Alec Dick and George Farmer were two of the finest and most useful players the club ever had. I regret to bear that the former is now in bad health. I know there has been a fund running in the “Echo”, but the support does not appear to be great so far. I would suggest that Everton see to his pressing needs, and when the new season begins a collection be taken on the ground.
Please note;- Everton are doing something for Alec Dick’s family.
THE JUNIOR
I can quote the case of an Everton player (writes “Once True Blue”) who signed amateur forms six months ago. This player, I may mention, is a centre-half, A Stewart who when chosen for the Reserves has proved himself (according to your valuable paper) the “mainstay of Everton’s defence.” This player has played in A Team fixtures, on a promise given by Everton’s secretary that the directors were looking forward to his services for next season, but who now tell him that they have signed on three centre halves, which means, I take it, his services are not required.

CLUB CHAIRMAN REPLIES TO A CORRESPONDENT
The Liverpool Echo, Friday, June 11, 1920
Bee’s Notes
The Everton chairman tells me in reply to “Spion Kop’s” letter, that he will readily answer a question sent to him by anyone giving his name and address, but that of course he is unable to answer every anonymous correspondent who cares to write to the papers. He says that neither office nor staff were employed by himself or his friends in connection with private matters.
A HARD CASE
“Full back” writes;- With regard to “Once True Blue’s” article re Stewart I should like to state that my case is worse, I was given a trial by Everton the same day as Stewart and was signed as an amateur two days later, was selected to play against Bolton Wanderers Res, away and home and was signed on as a professional, after which I was never included in the reserve team. I was also told that they would be looking forward to my services for next season by the secretary. However, instead I was informed that I would be given a free transfer, I applied to the F.A. for re-instatement, but according to rule I was earning too much to obtain reinstatement, so I consider that I am in a far worse position than Stewart, being barred from all amateur football I did not apply for a trial, but was approached by the club management.

JOE DONNACHIE TO BLACKPOOL.
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.

STUD MARKS.
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.

NEW CENTRE FORWARD SIGNED ON FROM TRANMERE ROVERS
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.

W.WRIGHT
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.

ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF THE E.F.C.CO.LTD
The Liverpool Football Echo- Saturday, June 19, 1920
In response to a requisition of many readers, including several of the founders, I reproduce herewith the print of the Everton Club’s articles;-

  1. Subject as hereinafter provided the regulations contained in the table marked “A” in the first schedule to the Companion Act, 1862 (hereinafter called Table “A”) shall apply to this company.
  2. The directors may enter into an agreement with the Everton Football Club, or the members or committee thereof for carrying into effect and may do all acts which they (the directors) may consider necessary for carrying into effect the resolutions referred to in the memorandum of association, with any such modification or alterations as the directors and the said club, members, or committee may agree upon, and from and after the making of such agreement the provisions thereof shall be deemed to be incorporated with and form part of these articles, and shall be subject to be altered, varied, cancelled, or added to by special resolution, in like manner as the articles or association of the company are so subject.
  3. The qualification of every director shall be the holding and retention of three shares at least in the capital of the company.
  4. Any notice if served by post shall be deemed to be served on the day following that on which it is posted, and Clause 95 of Table A shall be modified accordingly.
  5. No, longer dividend shall be declared than the maximum dividend allowed-from time to time -by the Football Association as a condition or membership if such association.
  6. Subject as aforesaid, the profits of the company shall be divisible among the members in proportion to the amount paid up on the share held by them respectively. Provided nevertheless that where capital is paid up in advance of calls upon the footing that the game shall carry interest, such capital shall not, whilst carrying interest, confer a right to participate in profits.
  7. Every member shall have one vote and every member holding not less than twenty shares in his own name shall have one additional vote, but no member shall have more than two votes.
  8. The directors may, raise money to the purposes of the company on lean from their co-directors or any other persons on the security of debentures, bonds, or promissory notes or otherwise or by way of mortgage of the whole of the present or future property of the company, and at such rate of interest, on such terms, and in such manner as they may think fit, and may execute in the name and on behalf of the company in favour of any director or other person who may incur or to be about to incur, or who may in contemplation of the formation of the company, have already incurred any personal liability for the benefit of the company such mortgage of or charge on the company’s property (present and future) as they think fit; and any such mortgage may contain a power of sale and such other powers, covenants and provisions as shall be agreed upon.
  9. The directors may from time to time make vary, and repeat any by laws for the regulation of this business of the company, its officers and servants or the members of the company or any section thereof, and may appoint and remove professional players and servants of the company and elect such persons as they shall approve to be playing members of the company upon such terms as they shall think fit.
  10. The directors may take over or others acquire the benefit of a lease of Mere Green field, Walton-on-the-hill, dated the 15th day of March 1892 and made between Christopher John Leyland of the one part, and William Jackson and others of the other part.
  11. If the company shall be wound up and the surplus assets shall be insufficient to repay shall the whole of the paid-up capital such surplus asset shall be distributed so that as nearly as may be the losses shall be borne by the members, in portion to the capital paid up or which ought to have been paid up, on the shares held by then respectively at the commencement of the winding up; but this clause is to be without prejudicial the rights of the holders of shares issued upon special conditions.
  12. 12 Until the first directors shall have been appointed the subscribes to memorandum of association shall be deemed in any purposes to be the directors. The names of addresses of the subscribers are as follow;-

George Mahon (chairman), 2, Ambrose-grove, Liverpool
William Jackson, 86 Aubrey street, Liverpool
Abraham Thos, Coates, 25, Rocky lane, Liverpool
Francis Currier, 3. Towerfield-lane, Bebington
William Robert Clayton, 74 Dacy-road, Liverpool
James Clement Baxter, 110 Robson-street, Liverpool
John Atkinson 29 Anfield road, Liverpool
James Griffiths 6 Moss-lane, Walton
John Davies 9 Dacy road, Liverpool
Arthur Ernest Leyland, Cleveland House, Aintree
The agreement re Goodison Park, &c.,
An Agreement made the 27th day of June 1892, between The Everton Football Club (hereinafter called the said club) of the first part, William Jackson cashier; James Griffiths, coal merchant; George Mahon chartered accountant; John Davies warehouseman and William Roberts Clayton, bookkeeper all of the city of Liverpool (hereinafter called the said lessees) of the second part, and the Everton Football Club Company Limited, (hereinafter called the said company) of the third part. Whereas the said club has been carried on for some time past, and has entered into contracts with players, and has entered into contracts for the levelling and sending the premises comprised in the lease hereinafter referred to and the erection of certain buildings, stands, hoardings and other effects upon or in course of erection on the premises comprised in the said lease. And whereas by an indenture of lease, dated the 15th day of March 1892 and made between Christopher, John Leyland of part and the said lessees of the other part. All that field or piece of land known as Mere Green Field situate ion the township of Walton-on-the-hill, in the county of Lancaster and containing 26,666 square yards or thereabout and more particularly described in the plan on or annexed to the said indenture and therein edged with a pink line reserving and excepting out of that demise the portion of the said field containing 1,166 yards or thereabouts distinguished in the said plan by being coloured blue and also all clay marl, brick-earth, gravel stone and sand, and all coal and metallic and other minerals whatever under the same field was demised unto the lessees. To hold the same (reserving and excepting as aforesaid) unto the said lessness from the 1st day of May, 1892 for the term of seven years thence next ensuing at the rent and subject to the provisions in the raid indenture referred to and contained. And whereas the said lessees acquired the said lease as trustees for the said club and whereas the said company has been formed for the purpose among other things of taking over the said effects and the liabilities of the said club upon the terms hereinafter appearing, &c. The document is of too great a length to reproduce here in its entirely).
TAKE IT FROM VIN-
That the extraordinary general meeting of the Everton shareholders to be held next Friday, will be a “dress rehearsal” for the annual. That as expected Liverpool have had a prosperous season. The 17 ½ per cent (7 ½ this season and 5 for each of the previous two) is a welcome share-out. The A,G.,M. promises to be a very congenial affair.
That Everton will pay the new maximum dividend- 7 ½ per cent-which will only absorb £145. On account of the microscopic amount required, the club has always paid a dividend. Not so Liverpool. Their “divi” allocation hundreds sterling.
That “Pa” Jackson, the real founder of Everton at Anfield, 35 years ago is wonderfully hale and hearty “considering.” He completion his eightieth year next month.

MR. CLAYTON
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.

EVERTON MADE £3,386 PROFIT ON YEAR’S WORKING
The Liverpool Echo- Friday, June 25, 1920
The Everton Football Club’s annual report and balance-sheet share’s a profit of £3,386 19s for the year ended May 1st. Gate receipts and proceeds from “away” matches totalled £46,237, of which visiting clubs received £6,340 while £8,730 went in entertainment tax. The heaviest item of expenditure was players wages and transfer fees £15,510 while benefits absorbed £3,500. The annual meeting will be held on Friday, July 2nd, in the Central Hall, Renshaw-street, Liverpool, when the directors well recommend the payment of a dividend of 7 ½ per cent. The retiring directors Messrs Jno, Davies, H. Halsall, and H. Banks, are seeking re-election, and nominations have also been received from Messrs. W.C. Gibbins, and W.J. Sawyer.

A RELAND FOR HIS OLIVER
The Liverpool Echo- Friday, June 25, 1920
Bee’s Notes
“Vin” writes;- Although he was told that the correspondences had closed Mr. Clayton rushes into print in a vein dust-in-the-eyes attempt to distract the Everton shareholders rom the facts which were marshalled for his edification in my reply to him of the 12th inst. His cry; “All ‘Vin’ says is contrary to fact” can best be dealt with by the club’s real footballers, ex-directors, contemporaneous shareholders, and the writer at to-night’s “extraordinary” meeting of the holders-the floor of the hall being privileged. Elect a new board that will restore the club to its pristine prestige and eminence.

LIVELINESS AT MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS.
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.

EVERTON’S NOISY MEETING LAST NIGHT
The Liverpool Football Echo-Saturday, June 26, 1920
RIOT OF RECRIMINATIONS
Bee’s Notes
Some years ago I held three shares in Everton F.C. after attending an annual meeting I was so disgusted with affairs that I sold those shares as hastily as possible. I attended a further meeting of Everton F.C. shareholders last night at central Hall, and I patted myself on the back that I was not a shareholder. There was never a meeting in my history that led to so many recriminations and boos and interruptions. Mr. W.R. Clayton was in the chair, and told the meeting why the gathering had been called. There had been an unscrupulous Press campaign against the club, and he was not going to sit down to untrue charges. If he was to be subjected to vile statements he would have no more to do with football. Mr. Clayton then took up “Vin’s” reply to his letter in the “Football Echo,” and also the statement of another athletic paper, but a shareholder asked why they had been called- was it to hear the case of Clayton v. “Vin” or to consider “the affairs of the club”?
Mr. Clayton proceeded for a while and then there arose a storm of interruption and qualification and questioning that made speech-making impossible. Players’ names, dead men’s names, officials’ names were indiscriminately discussed in public, and the meeting became a question of statement, denial, affirmation, and then the use of the word “Lie.” It was a discreditable meeting in many ways, and was significant in some respects. It was significant that Mr. Cuff, ex-secretary, had a steady hearing. The syndicate held the floor. It was doubly, that, after hearing that the board was a happy one, the sectionalising of the board last night on the platform proved otherwise. Ex-directors in Messrs. Wade and Dr. Whitford recalled the past, and Mr. Charles Wright hotly denied that he was, as the Chair had said, “chairman of the syndicate,” but this was only one denial of the evening, which was crowded with protests and noisy interruptions. Directors on the platform made accusation and denial followed ad nauseum, and I judged Mr. Green’s statement of a remark passed by Mr. Clayton to him “That the board was not well served this year” was the strongest link against the chances of the retiring directors. However, there is nothing to do now but await the annual meeting’s verdict, which will be given next Friday, and will be awaited with something like desperate interest. My Colleague “Stud Marks,” wrote me late on yesterday, and his reply to Mr. Clayton could not be inserted. I don’t think it matters now.

THE ALEC DICK FUND
The Liverpool Echo-Monday, June 29, 1920
Bee’s Notes
Further contributions are gratefully acknowledged -£1 1s from Mr. Alf Schofield, the former player, and 3s from “Old Timer.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

June 1920