No need to panic, not yet!

The recent leaking of the transcript of a meeting between Bill Kenwright and representatives of the Blue Union has caused a storm around Goodison Park. The mood was already bleak with many fans angry at Kenwright for the lack of transfer funds afforded to David Moyes this summer, but the lid was blown off the pot with the release of the minutes. Everton are angry, insisting that all sides agreed to keep the meeting confidential, and many fans have turned against the movement. But many think leaking the transcript was the right thing to do, and that Kenwright is dragging the club down. Whatever your opinion, the fact is that the meeting lifted the lid on some very interesting truths about the state of Everton FC.

When Kenwright took the club over from Peter Johnson 12 years ago we were in a precarious situation, both on and off the pitch. Years of mismanagement had left the club on the brink of relegation and on the verge of administration. Fast forward to today, and while the situation on the pitch is much different, financially it does seem like the club is being held together by sticky back plastic and the good intentions of a few. The debt Kenwright took over from Johnson has been renegotiated to a much more manageable yearly sum, but income is still outstripped by expenditure to the tune of £5million per year. Everton’s bankers, Barclays, have by all intents and purposes been accommodating but have decreased the clubs overdraft to £25million and has seemingly been putting pressure on Kenwright to sell one of our star players to service the debt. Kenwright himself claims to have remortgaged his house and taken out a £10million loan for the club, which, if true, is a measure of the man.

The Blue Union accuse Kenwright of standing in the way of progress. They claim he has failed, on two occasions, to build the club a new stadium, and that he has failed in his bid to find a new owner for the club. They also suggest that some fans believe that he is diverting money from the balance sheet. It has also been suggested to me that he had full knowledge that the transcript was to be released, and that there was no such confidentiality agreement in place, and that the club is trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Evertonians by claiming otherwise.

I certainly don't doubt the intentions of the Blue Union, and their determination to take action to further the Everton cause is admirable. And there are certainly questions to be answered. Kenwright hasn’t done himself any favours with his silence on some of the fans concerns. He has lauded Keith Harris, the man appointed with finding the club a new buyer, yet this is the man who nearly sold the club to a trickster from a single bed flat in Manchester, and whom David Gill, the Manchester United CEO, said would go anywhere for publicity. There is also the matter of the £25million operational costs of the club, which Kenwright seemed unable to explain at the meeting, although the club claim this is largely due to the new Finch Farm training complex. The question of whether there was an agreement in place to keep the details of the meeting confidential can easily be answered by the Blue Union releasing the unedited version of the minutes from the tape (there is definitely a tape as this level of conversational detail didn’t come from memory). The fact that they haven’t, to me, speaks volumes.

Personally, I firmly believe Kenwright saved the club. He took over at our lowest ebb, and along with others prevented the club from slipping into administration. He appointed Moyes, and then stuck by him when many fans were demanding his head, and they continue to have one of the best working relationships in the league. He has overseen the building of the state of the art training facility at Finch Farm and has developed a productive, close knit relationship with sponsors Chang. His dedication to the club, as the Blue Union admit, is not open to question. He has been unbelievably unlucky with the Kings Dock and Destination Kirkby projects, both of which he invested considerable time, money and effort into. I also believe that he has taken the club as far as he can, and he himself has said publicly for years now he wishes to sell to the right buyer. But as Kenwright says, we are in the middle of a severe global financial crisis. Buyers for football clubs are few and far between. Those clubs that have been bought either have brand new stadiums (in some cases that they didn’t even pay for), or have been taken over by those so rich that the financial crisis barely bothers them. The former includes clubs such as Blackburn and Sunderland, while the latter include Liverpool, Chelsea and Man United. Man City fall into both categories. The fact is that very few people are interested in buying a club with an ageing stadium and substantial debts, so quite whom Everton fans see taking over from Kenwright is unclear.

There are other members of the board who should perhaps be attracting more criticism than Kenwright. Robert Earl underwrote loans for the club and brings, according to Kenwright, considerable marketing experience, has yet to actually invest any money. Likewise Jon Woods has not, as far as anyone is aware, invested any money since the takeover from Johnson. There are also some extremely wealthy individuals (Lord Granchester and Phillip Green, billionaires both) around the club who, for one reason or another, don’t wish to invest. Perhaps Kenwright should be more persuasive in his endeavours to get one of them to part with some cash, but Kenwright seems to be the only one who has invested any substantial money into the club.

The lack of a new ground is a severe hinderance to the club finding a new owner. Goodison is a grand old stadium with a great atmosphere and a distinguished history, but there is no scope for expansion, and matchday revenue is unsustainably low. There has been plenty of finger pointing about why the previous stadium projects have fallen through, but one thing is clear - there needs to be a new push for a new stadium, preferably in co-operation with Liverpool city council. The Football Quarter scheme looks an interesting proposition that would re-develop the local area around the current ground. For the club to be able to afford this though, investment would be needed.

Everton fans are frustrated because they see sides around them spending, whilst we are currently the only club without a summer signing. This is, of course, understandable. Clubs such as Sunderland have signed several big names this summer, while rivals Liverpool, Chelsea and both Manchester clubs have spent huge. It is worth mentioning though that £250 million of the £350 million spent in the Premier League this summer has been from these five clubs; Tottenham and Stoke have so far spent nothing, whilst a further eight clubs have spent under £10million each. Sides like Aston Villa, Newcastle and Arsenal, as well as Spurs if they lose Modric, will be significantly weaker this season that last season, whereas Everton still have the same squad that finished last season so strongly (with the addition of Ross Barkley). It is true, of course, that this all could change during the remainder of the transfer window.

Aside from the clubs financial situation, there is much to be optimistic about at the club. We have one of the best managers in the league, who has built a top squad with a fantastic work ethic and a great team spirit who have been together for several seasons, and an excellent backroom staff. We have many in demand players, the vast majority of whom are under long term deals, and at least four of whom – Jagielka, Rodwell, Fellaini and Baines, are valued at at least £15million. Our midfield scored more goals than any other Premier League side, other than Man Utd, last season, and we have two current England internationals in our defence. It is certainly the case that we are light up front but Beckford finished last season strongly, and Saha has had a full pre-season for once. I actually fancy Big Vic to have a good season, and with the attacking prowess we have from midfield, particularly from Tim Cahill, goals may not be so much of an issue. Much depends on how Mikel Arteta plays this season, as his guile and craft could be crucial if we are to do well.

The major plus for Everton is, yet again, the youth system. For year we’ve had one of the most productive youth programmes in the Premier League, and last years emergence of Seamus Coleman and Jack Rodwell was a highlight. This year it seems that Ross Barkley is the latest to roll off the production line. He may have come through sooner but for a double leg break on England duty last season, and his performances at the start of this season have been hugely promising, leading to an under-21 call up for the 17 year old midfielder. Also looking to break into the first team will be Magueye Gueye, who had a fantastic pre-season prior to his injury, and reserve team captain Jose Baxter has bags of promise and will also be hoping to step up. There are several players from last season’s triumphant Academy side who certainly have the potential to make the grade, namely Conor McAleny, Jake Bidwell and Eric Dier. Dier in particular looks like a special player, and we have an option to sign him at the end of the season, which we should take up at all costs. Two players who missed the Academy final as they were on England duty, John Lundstram and Hallam Hope, have been touted in the national media as future stars.

The future for Everton will be the youth of the club. When you have a quality youth system as we do, this is a good thing, but we do need some investment in the team to complement it. We don’t need to spend a fortune, and to be honest I don’t want a billionaire sugar daddy to bankroll the club. I see what is happening at Man City, and what has happened at Chelsea, and it makes me feel empty. Buying success, for me at least, is not a satisfactory way to run a club, and besides, new UEFA rules concerning the way clubs are run and the amount of debt they can hold means this type of business model won’t be viable in the future anyway.

What we need is someone who will invest enough to help the club into a new stadium and to clear the majority of our debts; these acts alone would free up enough money to give Moyes a decent transfer budget each season. However this level of investment, while not excessive, is going to be difficult to come across in today’s financial environment, and fans need to understand and accept this. However the gloom around the club, even factoring in the opening day defeat to QPR, is unwarranted, unjustified, and the fans really need to pull together for the sake of the team.

Why did the rioting happen?

The riots that have spread across London and other cities in England over the past week have angered and shocked the whole country. Unprecedented looting and arson attacks have left high streets boarded up, buildings destroyed and the police stretched. The public are angry, and the country is united in condemning those responsible.

The debate into what may have caused this is already underway, and there are of course many differing opinions, but many in government and on the social networking sites refuse to accept that there may be underlying issues behind the trouble, believing instead that anyone who talks of this is ‘making excuses’ for the looters. London Mayor Boris Johnson has said he has 'heard enough about the background to this', seemingly uninterested in why people in his city are rioting.

This is an extremely dangerous attitude. Firstly there is a vast difference between understanding the issues behind the build up of anger that led to the riots, and defending the thugs who rioted. Very few are interested in defending the actions of those mindless idiots who looted stores, burned down buildings and attacked police, many of whom were opportunist criminals who have no idea about what they were rioting for. Secondly, understanding the underlying causes for the anger that led to it is crucial if we want to prevent it from happening again; if these underlying issues are ignored then the danger is that we’ll simply see a repeat. To coin a phrase; tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime.

It is difficult to see the events of the this week without looking at the current economic situation, despite some politicians trying to deny any links. Any recession disproportionately affects impoverished areas, and the riots started in some of the poorest areas of our cities. Jobs are scarce and unemployment is high (Haringey has 29 jobseekers for each vacancy, while Hackney and Lewisham has 26), and young people in particular have been hit particularly hard, with a million under 25’s across the country out of work, including nearly 250,000 16-18 year olds. With a failing economy their prospects look bleak to say the least.

It has been said by many that those looking for work should move to where the work is but, aside from the fact that there are few jobs anywhere at the moment, many of these youngsters leave school with few skills, meaning they can only really look at low paid jobs which in turn makes it more difficult to travel for work when you factor travel costs in. The scrapping of the EMA by the government means the financial incentive for youngsters to stay in education has gone, and youth services and centres have been cut, forcing youngsters out on the streets where they have nothing to do. Our inner city youth is becoming trapped in a cycle of poverty and unemployment. In media interviews with community leaders, youth workers and young people in the aftermath of the violence, most of them not involved in the violence, this issue has been consistently raised.

Many of these issues have been a problem since before the recent financial crisis. There have been issues of racial tensions, police community relations, unemployment, education, etc for decades, and successive governments have not sufficiently tackled the problems. Inner city schools in particular have failed generations of children from impoverished backgrounds, and considering education is the key in aiding social mobility in our inner city areas this is unacceptable.

When you create an atmosphere of anger and hopelessness the more extreme elements – in this case the rioters, will often turn to violence. In this sense it is no different from the problems with the far right groups. Those who cause violence on the right are the extreme elements of a much larger group of people who feel alienated and marginalised within society, and it’s true that those who rioted this weekend are the tip of the iceberg of a much larger group of disenfranchised youths who, while they chose not to riot, are just as angry.

These conditions create are ripe for gang recruitment, and many of the groups of seemingly organised violence appeared to be gang members. Gangs have been a problem for many years now in our inner cities. There are areas in which the police refuse to enter unless absolutely necessary, which leaves the gangs in control.  In these cases what is needed is for the communities, including the families of gang members, to stand up and take action against these gangs, as the people within these communities are the ones most damaged by the existence of gangs. In too many areas many within the community refuse to do this, often adopting a ‘wall of silence’ when it comes to investigations involving crimes by gang members. Some of this is down to fear of the gangs, but mostly there is no excuse.

Much has been made of the role of the family life of the rioters. Many were asking where the parents were, and why these people were allowed to be out in the middle of riot zones, often until the early hours of the morning. These are perfectly reasonable questions, particularly with the younger looters. But many right wing commentators and politicians appear to be suggesting this is the only issue, and in particular there has been a lot of criticism directed at single parent families. This is a familiar gripe of the right, and while many of the rioters will have undoubtedly grown up without a male influence, blaming this is not a solution. Living in an unhappy two parent family is as bad, if not worse, as growing up in a single parent family. The more accurate criticism is the absence of responsible parenting, not the number of parents

The fact that our country, and in particular London, was left without a leader until Tuesday morning was nothing short of a disgrace. The PM, the Deputy PM, the Chancellor, the Home Secretary, and the Mayor of London, all on holiday at the same time, took 4 days to heed the cries of the nation they are supposed to be leading. The anger that people feel towards these leaders was seen in angry scenes when Boris Johnson and Theresa May visited Clapham, and Nick Clegg when he visited Birmingham. David Cameron avoided this by keeping away from the public during his visit to Croydon. Labour leader Ed Miliband should not escape criticism, cutting his holiday short only after Cameron had. He missed a trick by not providing the leadership the country so sorely missed in Cameron’s absence, although it should be said that, unlike others, he is not actually part of the government.

Fortunately local leaders have stepped into the gap in the absence of national leadership. MP’s such as Diane Abbott in Hackney, Stella Creasy in Walthamstow, David Lammy in Tottenham and Angie Bray in Ealing have been important presences in their respective areas, providing the leadership that was lacking elsewhere.

Another organisation suffering from the lack of a leader, the Metropolitan Police’s initial response to the aftermath of the shooting of Mark Duggan was inadequate, and their refusal to answer the questions of angry residents was a mistake which only increased tension in the area. Eventually this tension exploded into violence. The reluctance to take serious action against rioters on the first night was also a mistake, although whether this would have helped contain the violence is difficult to say. However this was more of a failure of the force rather than by individual officers. It is difficult to criticise police response in subsequent nights. The sheer scale of the violence took everyone by surprise, and the police were faced with an impossible task, and in most cases they performed admirably. The police have also suffered from cuts, and this has led to a shortage of officers, in particular officers that work in the community. This has been a major factor in the deterioration in the relationship between inner city communities and the police. There has clearly been an issue of the lack of respect for the police over many years, but it’s important that this isn’t seen as a separate issue, rather an extension of the above issues.

Many argue that there shouldn’t be any political arguments made during this crisis and that everyone should sing from the same hymn sheet, but there are political issues at work here, and it’s absolutely right that our politicians should be debating this. Whilst all sides strongly condemn the rioters, the divides between the parties are becoming apparent. The Tories are attempting to paint anyone who talks about deeper economic issues as ‘riot apologisers’, and are linking the rioting to a breakdown in society. David Cameron has also come out and argued for greater responsibility from parents and communities, however he needs to understand that as well as this we need greater responsibility by our government and politicians. Meanwhile Labour leader Ed Miliband has said that ‘we must resist simple explanations, these are complex issues’. Labour MP’s represent the majority of the inner city areas that saw violence, and they are linking the riots to deeper socio-economic issues, including some of the coalition cuts, particularly cuts in youth services and in the police (as, coincidentally do many Tories, including Boris Johnson). The Lib Dem’s are, unfortunately, nowhere, bound in to the government line by their Tory partners.

It is the case though that every decision taken in the spending review was a conscious choice by the government, and there were plenty of alternatives for each choice made. Anyone who says different is flat out lying; they may have believed their approach to tackling the deficit was the best way forward but don’t let them tell you there was no choice. The decision was made by Chancellor George Osborne to cut quickly, deeply and drastically, and consequently the economic recovery has flatlined. Other options to tackle the deficit other than cuts that disproportionately affected the poor were to cut slower and less deep, and pay the deficit back over a longer time; raising taxes, particularly against the financial sector that caused the global economic crisis; or to grow our way out of recession.

This leads us to a much deeper structural problem that has contributed to all of the above issues. Our global financial system is broken. We have the balance of our society is all wrong, we need to rebuild an economy that serves the people, rather than people serving the economy. For too many years now there has been growing socio-economic divides and too much emphasis on greed within business contributing to the anger felt in inner cities. The recent global financial crisis has severely exacerbated these problems, and has affected us all. There may have been little choice but to bail the banks out, but this should have been on the provision of massive reform. And where did all the money from the banking bail out go? It disappeared into the financial merry-go-round, kept it running for a little while longer, but we certainly didn’t see any of it.

Unfortunately the banks don’t want to change. They don’t want to pay more in taxes. They don’t want more regulation. They don’t want to lend more. They don’t want to stop paying bonuses. Despite crashing the global economy, they don’t want to change one iota, and when threatened with any of the above they threaten to leave the country and move their operations to Asia. This is blackmail against the nation. Unfortunately the Tories aren’t interested in reforming the financial system; bankers, hedge fund managers and private equity bosses account for more than 50% of the funding for the Conservative party.

Our economy is completely at the mercy of the stock market and hedge funds, who make their living gambling with other people’s money. When they get it right they are the ones who reap most of the rewards, when they get it wrong we are the ones who pay most of the cost. George Osborne’s entire economic policy is geared towards placating the bond markets, at whatever cost to jobs and society. Financial problems in Greece, Portugal, Spain and Ireland were greatly exacerbated by global credit ratings agencies lowering the credit ratings of struggling economies, pulling the rug from under them right at the point in which they were at their most vulnerable and leaving millions of citizens facing uncertain futures.

We’ve managed to create for ourselves an economy in which rising oil prices are blamed for the increase in the cost of food, yet BP and Shell can announce profits of £8 billion in just one quarter. One in which the market has valued Barclay’s boss Bob Diamond’s salary as worth that of 218 teachers. One where, as I’ve found out recently from a social worker friend, a local authority deems £600 to counsel a 14 year old victim of gang rape as excessive because of cutbacks. All in all, we’ve managed to create an economy in which we reward greed while at the same time ignoring those most in need.

The banks caused the global financial crisis. Of course it is true that governments were complicit in running up debt, but this debt was perfectly manageable until the banks crashed the economies. Governments other failures were in allowing the banking industry to dominate our economy, and in not regulating them properly. But the banks and the financial industry caused it. However, we all have to shoulder some of the responsibility for this as we’ve allowed the financial institutions to position themselves in such an influential position over our lives. Successive governments have allowed this to happen, aided by the media who have caricatured those who wish to see reform as ‘commies’, and any alternative ideas, such as the Robin Hood financial transaction tax, are dismissed as pie in the sky.

The question is whether people will decide to act. People often feel helpless in the face of such a behemoth as the global financial system, but as we’ve seen in recent weeks and months, we live in revolutionary times. We’ve seen people in the Middle East rising up against dictators, fighting for democracy; in this country we’ve seen dozens of MP’s forced out of office over the expenses scandal, and we’ve forced the closure of the News of the World due to the hacking scandal. We are still in the process of unveiling the extent of uncovering the collusion between our elites in government, the media and the police. There is no reason we cannot reform our economy if that is what we want; indeed we are the only ones that can.

I haven’t always thought like this. I’m not a revolutionary, or a socialist; I consider myself to be on the centre left of the political spectrum. I’ve always known that something was amiss but I didn’t put this down to the economic system or the society we’ve built. It has taken the events of the past few years to reshape my views. I also believe that more and more people from the centre of politics such as myself are drawing the same conclusions. There are also many who will dismiss everything in this piece, those who do not believe criminality has causes, but these wider structural issues have all been crucial in creating the conditions that led to what we saw on the streets of London and the rest of Britain. No one is born a criminal; their circumstances turn them this way, and unless we understand and tackle these problems, this will not be the last time the streets of Britain will burn.