Les Misérables: they weren't kidding.

I have just discovered the true meaning of the words mind-numbing and tedious. Three hours watching a company of actors sing their dialogue at each other while swinging from a barricade or spinning around on a revolving stage drove me to the very edge of reason.

On Wednesday afternoon my partner and I attended a matinee performance of Les Misérables at the Queen's Theatre, Shaftesbury Avenue.

I have no intention of denigrating actors, whom, for the most part, were very good. This was not a bad performance. (Believe me, I've seen some bad West End performances!) No, the sets of  Les Misérables are spectacular, the lighting wonderful, the energy of the whole cast excellent.

It goes much deeper than that.

Actors can only work with the material they have. So, where was the characterisation, the irony, the subtext. Everything appeared bogus. Fake. Every scintilla of emotion drained from the original work. But that's hardly surprising when you think about it. The late Jack Tinker of the Daily Mail doubted the wisdom of trying to condense 1200 pages of novel into three and a half hours of stage time (now thankfully reduced to three hours) and wrote that 'it was like attempting to pour the entire contents of the English Channel through a china teapot.'

After three long hours I had no idea what the story was about. Jean Valjean is released from a chain gang after serving 19 years, does this that and the other between songs, including fighting at the barricades (I think) and rescuing somebody before pegging out at a ripe old age. And all this is accomplished between song after song after endless song. Honestly, I've tried to be fair and explain the plot as it unfolded in front of me (or didn't) and I haven't got a clue. Does that make me a thick Philistine? Maybe, but that's probably the subject of another blog. I thought it was about the French Revolution. My wife, who loved the whole thing and didn't stop talking about it on the journey back to Wimbledon, also thought it was about the the French Revolution, as did many people I overheard chatting about the performance as we made our way out of the theatre.

How can so many people get the essence of the plot so totally wrong? It is NOT about the French Revolution!

I'll tell you why so many people get it wrong. It's the sheer, unmitigated boredom brought on by stilted dialogue, shallow characterisation and lack of wit. I fidgeted in my seat so much I thought it would only be a matter of time before the woman sitting behind me cracked me across the head with her programme. When I spoke to her later to apologise she said she hadn't noticed me because after two hours she had lost all feeling in her behind and was squirming around while praying for a power cut. (A situation they had in a Manchester theatre recently just before the second act began. The show didn't go on and a refund was given. I wish somebody would have pulled the plug at the Queen's so I could have claimed my £133.00 back.)

Obviously, millions of people love this show, but millions hate it, too. And that's not a bad thing, you just need to keep a sense of perspective about these things. If you are thinking of buying tickets just be aware that Les Misérables has probably attracted more hype than any other show. If, like me, you don't like musicals in general, don't buy tickets for this based upon reviews or word of mouth (25 years is a long time to hype something) because you'll end up with a numb bum, pins and needles in your legs and a big hole in your wallet - oh, and you'll hate it, too.

On the other hand, if you love musicals and you can sit still for three hours...go and see it. Then, like my wife, take great pleasure in telling me I'm completely wrong!

---

Sky + HD: Is it worth upgrading?

You have Sky +. You've had it ages and you're quite happy with it, no intention of changing anything. You also have a forty something inch HD ready lump of plastic, either hanging on the wall or sitting in the corner on that very expensive smoked glass unit, and the picture is perfectly fine. You can see every acne spot on Wayne Rooney's finely chiselled features, and, at this moment in time, that's probably about as much as you want to see.

But, if you're anything like me, there's a muted voice in your head, nagging away at you every time you switch on the TV, and it won't go away. Every time you watch the football, or the tennis or even the rugby, you ask yourself the question - how much better would it look in High Definition? That's the first part of the question. The second part is - can I convince my partner it's worth paying an extra ten quid a month because we are already giving Murdoch fifty odd quid each month, and sometimes we can trawl through a hundred and ninety seven channels and find nothing of interest. That's usually on a Saturday evening after you've convinced your other half that it would be a good idea to stay in and order an Indian meal.

Yep, we've all been there.

Well, here's the good news. July 2011 is probably a good time to find out about HD. A couple of years ago, if you wanted HD it would have cost you £269.00 + £60.00 installation fee. And for that sort of money, never mind High Def, I'd want Wazza sitting in my front room, cup of tea in one hand a fairy cake in the other, telling me exactly how he smashed it past the Man City goalkeeper earlier that day.

So, what does it cost now? Order Sky+HD and it will cost fifteen quid. That's it. Just a delivery charge. (And an extra ten quid a month, but I'll get to that later) Of course, you'll have to install it yourself and you may be sitting there thinking - self install a sky box? You must be joking, I can barely change a plug. But, it's so simple to set up, Sky engineers who charged £60.00 for installation should be serving with Captain Jack Sparrow, wearing eye patches and waving cutlasses about.

Unpack the box. There's just two leads. A power cable and HDMI cable.  And every connection point on the back of your new box is colour coded. Show the instruction booklet to your Labrador, and he'll have the thing up and running inside five minutes. If you don't have a family pet, pull all the leads and cables out of your old box and replace them into your new HD box. The only discernible difference is your new box uses the new HDMI cable instead of the Scart lead.

Now you need to update the software. I can almost hear several of you going uh-oh. Hold the cat back, he may also want to get in on the action. Switch on your TV and turn on the new Sky box and wait three minutes. Press and hold the standby button on the remote until the light on the sky box turns red. Press and hold the back up button on the top of your new Sky box. A message comes up on screen - Updating System Software. Release the back up button. Pour yourself a stiff drink - you've earned it. Pour another one and then glance at the screen. That riot of colour and close up shots of individually defined nose hairs is High Definition.

Haven't finished yet, I'm afraid. Pour another drink and then remove the sky card from your old box and insert it into your new box. A message appears on-screen telling you the new box does not recognise your card. You could look at the instruction booklet, go through a few menus and sort it out yourself - but why bother? Pour yourself another drink and phone the number that has just appeared on the screen. A friendly Sky person will talk you through the menus, ask for a couple of details, and then tell you it may take twenty-four hours for the details to register.

I don't know why they say that, you'll see your card being accepted by the new box even as the Sky person is talking. Put the phone down and look at the screen. Everything is working, you are up and running. Pour yourself another drink, sit down and watch whatever is on screen. Georgie Thompson and Sky Sports News is a good place to start. Something for everyone there, I think.

Whatever turns you on...

When your partner arrives home, point at the screen and look smug. You'll probably be asked if it was difficult to install. Use the standard answer. Goes like this. Well, it was a bit fiddly, and I had to upgrade the software and sort out HDMI connections and such like, but it only took a couple of hours and I did save us sixty quid installation charges.  So I might buy that new sweater/shoes/shirt/handbag/hat I was looking at the other the day. Remember, the thing you said was too expensive.

If you hear the dog growling at this point, do not catch his eye or he will probably take you down.

So, is Sky+HD worth an extra £10.00 a month? Yes, it is. For the first time since you bought your television it will be running at full capacity, showing the picture it was designed to show. The clarity of picture, the vibrancy of colour, the improved sound, everything is upgraded by 30/40 percent. (I wish I were being paid by Sky for this! And a case of Jim Beam wouldn't go amiss, either.) The first programme I watched in HD was Michael Portillo's rail journey. A very good programme in its own right, but my God, the pictures of the English countryside in HD were stunning. In the first couple of days, I've watched a movie, a wildlife programme and a football match and I've come to the conclusion that EVERYTHING looks better in High Definition - even Wayne Rooney's hair transplant.

If you can afford another ten quid a month without putting the kids into a workhouse - go for it. You won't regret it. 

---

Everton FC: Time for change

Philip Neville 2011

This is an edited transcript of a piece that appeared in the pages of Toffeeweb. It is a very long letter. If you are interested in Everton Football Club I would advise you to read it. An unedited version is available here.

* * * *

There is considerable interest in a very good letter put together by fans calling themselves The People's Group on Facebook. Their aim is to highlight the failings of the Everton Board of Directors through the national media with the hope of getting answers. The letter has been sent to various media outlets and is a direct request for some proper investigative journalism to dig into the current Everton hierarchy and their failure to push Everton forward in this era when the Premier League is awash with money.


Dear Sir/Madam;

David Moyes 2011

We are writing to you on behalf of many Everton fans who are growing restless, frustrated and angry at the current goings on with the board of Everton Football Club. We started a campaign on Twitter, to start making journalists aware of the unrest at our club. Every year, David Moyes — who is doing an excellent job of keeping Everton in the top half of the table under the constraints — has to wheel and deal and settle for second-best in terms of transfer targets. However, the overall picture is a lot more concerning for Evertonians, and we want the media to start investigating and reporting in more depth what is going on at the club. We the fans need a voice and a lead to put pressure on this board with the aim of getting them to start being open and honest, and ultimately to let someone else have a chance of running the club.

This letter will outline many concerns and issues we have with the Board and the reason we are asking the media to get involved is because the club simply does not speak to its fans. AGMs were cancelled, shareholders' meetings are few and far between and any questions that do manage to get asked of the Board are brushed aside and are not answered. In the meantime, we have to put up with a Chairman and a Board who are clearly out of depth in running a major football club.

With all due respect to other clubs in the Premier League and acknowledging that no-one has a divine right to be top of the league, we feel we are being left behind in the modern game. 20 years ago, when the Premier League was formed, and Sky was set to begin a new era of top-flight football, only one team had won more top-flight titles than Everton. We had average attendances to rival anyone in the league, and had just come off the back of an 8-year period of 2 league titles, 4 FA cup finals, a European trophy plus countless other awards and triumphs. Since then the club has stagnated at best and we have watched other teams outspend, outshine and out think Everton Football Club.

More importantly than this, we have missed out on a lot of opportunities to progress, and particularly in the last 8 years under the stewardship of Bill Kenwright. Bill is a self proclaimed Evertonian, and this seems to cloud people’s judgement on the job he is doing. Not just the fans, but the media too, who see Bill as a people’s man, when really he is just a showman. His profession says it all, actor!

King's Dock. Liverpool

We are going to highlight some concerns and issues we have, to alert you to the gross mismanagement that is going on. We will do this in as close to a chronological order as we can. The biggest mistake, and possibly the most unforgivable issue with Kenwright, dates back to 2003, and the Kings Dock Project. We had a magnificent chance to build a state-of-the-art stadium on the banks of the Mersey and in a prime location on Liverpool’s waterfront.

All Everton had to do was find £30m. £30m that would have set Everton up to a potential lifetime of guaranteed income and progress. Here lies the issue: Bill Kenwright told the fans that this £30m was 'ring-fenced'. However, when the time came for Everton to prove they had their share of the money, it simply was not there. Everton found getting that money problematical, and so the dream of this stadium ended. How can finding £30m be problematic if it is ring-fenced? He has always refused to answer these questions. Imagine where Everton could be now, with a 55,000-seater stadium, which would also have hosted concerts, banquets, conferences etc, for the measly sum of £30m. The dream died and no questions were asked. Kenwright said he would learn from the experience.

Paul Gregg

This led to the high-profile power struggle with Paul Gregg which dragged the club's name through the mud. Gregg, a multimillionaire and a friend of Kenwright for over 30 years, agreed to help his friend buy out Peter Johnson in 1999. But he fell out with Kenwright and sought help, and he found it in the shape of Robert Earl, Planet Hollywood founder. Robert Earl bought out Gregg’s shares, but note the following article which claims Earl had no interest in providing funds for Moyes, or any interest in the search for a new stadium. This is a promise that has actually come true for once from a board member! So, what is his role then? What is the point on him being on the Everton Board? He is still there now, and the only time we have ever heard of him is when he got Sylvester Stallone to attend a match in 2007; not one penny invested.

Moyes and Rooney 2004

Moving on, and we look at some more facts about that era, which include some famous quotes from our Chairman: In June 2004, Kenwright said he would not entertain the idea of selling Wayne Rooney — even if we received a bid for £50m. Rooney was sold 2 months later in a deal worth £20m rising to £27m. Why make statements like this only to back down 2 months later? If Rooney wanted to go, that doesn’t matter; it was a cheap deal and it broke Everton fans' hearts. Kenwright apparently ‘desperately’ sought investment in 2004; the infamous Fortress Sports Fund was set up to be our magical saviour and it all looked rosy.

We were told the money would be in Everton’s bank by Christmas 2004. However, this deal fell through and no explanation was ever offered. Why? Why did another deal fall through? In 1 year we lost Kings Dock, we had a public fallout at Board level, we sold Rooney, and an investment opportunity fell through. No questions where ever answered... Just ignored until forgotten.

Trevor Birch

Around this time in 2004, Everton appointed a Chief Executive, Trevor Birch, whose objective it was to find investment or ways of getting investment into the club. Six weeks later, he resigned, with no official explanation, but rumours of a rift with the Board after having seen the state of the finances; he told Kenwright to sell the club, plus other alternatives were dismissed. Again, it was brushed under the carpet and another embarrassing episode forgotten.

A quiet couple of years, mainly due to the miracle that Moyes performed in getting Everton to a 4th-place finish in 2005. Even at this time, when we had one chance to try and push on, we played a Champions League qualifier having signed one new player, Simon Davies. We kicked off without a recognised left back and eventually lost to Villarreal over two legs. We went on to finish 11th and the chance of progress was lost. This season was followed by the start of the farce that was the Kirkby project. This materialised from 2007 and was the first evidence of public fan unrest with the Board, with the KEIOC group (Keep Everton in our City) opposed to the Kirkby move, set up to provide opposition to the move and to prove the plans where doomed from the start.

The Kirkby Project

Everton claimed it was the ‘Deal of the Century’, and had to come up with £78m to fund their bit towards a project involving Tescos. However, a lot of fans were unhappy with this potential move as it would have pushed Everton outside the city boundaries. So, Everton decided to put the matter to a vote. Out of the fans that voted, 41% said No to the move, with a lot sitting on the fence. This was surely too large a number of fans to ignore? But the People’s Club again ignored a large proportion of their people and pressed ahead with the move. The move fell through anyway, as KEIOC predicted, and it therefore added to the failure of the Kings Dock project. People might say at least they tried, but both projects increased debt due to borrowing for legal fees, architects etc and both projects ultimately failed. Another bit of proof, if needed, that the business acumen of this Board is not up to the task of running a big Premier League club.

Since then there are numerous other promises or statements which have failed to materialise. This list gives just a snippet of some of the things from the start that have been said that have either failed to materialise, or that Kenwright has gone back on:

'I’ve not got the big money, but I promise to find investment' – Bill Kenwright January 2000 after acquiring EFC. Still waiting 11 years on.

'The NTL deal is secured' – Bill Kenwright, September 2000. The deal fell through.

'I wouldn’t sell Rooney for £50m' – Bill Kenwright, June 2004. In August he was sold for a deal worth £27m.

'The Fortress money will be in the bank in the morning' – Bill Kenwright speaking at the EGM (remember them?), September 2004. The deal collapsed and was never explained.

'Kirkby will be a world class arena, effectively free and with the best transport links in the UK' – Bill Kenwright speaking at the AGM, November 2006

'If we don’t leave Goodison soon the place will lose its safety certificate' – Bill Kenwright, December 2007.

'David will have cash to spend this summer' – Bill Kenwright, May 2009. We spent nothing until the sale of Lescott.

'Joleon is not for sale' – Bill Kenwright, August 2009.

'David will have cash to spend this summer' – Bill Kenwright, May 2010.

As you can see, these are not just over-dramatic headlines we are making up. It is there in black and white to see. And if you conduct some more research you will probably find some more hidden gems. However, the biggest concern for Evertonians is the lack of investment or the lack of takeover, and indeed, what is it exactly that the club want, and how much do they want for the club? That is, if the club is for sale in the first place!

However, the biggest concern for Evertonians is the lack of investment or the lack of takeover, and indeed, what is it exactly that the club want, and how much do they want for the club? That is, if the club is for sale in the first place! For example, on 26 August 2010, this piece in the media was released.

Kenwright says that there are people out there who have looked at buying the club but then never show up with the money. So, every potential investor who ever has an interest in Everton gets to the final stages but never come up with the money? Really? If that is so then why? Why are people not showing up with the money? Who are these people he claims where interested? From saying there are no buyers out there, to saying 4 or 5 buyers came close but they ALL disappeared without a trace? They all just suddenly disappeared conveniently? Was it due to the amount they were asking, or were they even there to begin with? No names were mentioned — why not? Surely there is nothing wrong with telling us who they were. He had no problem naming the Fortress Sports Fund after all. It all doesn’t add up. We are treated as fools and there is never any honesty.

The last time we heard from Kenwright was in April this year when he again told us there were three interested parties. So where have they gone? Co-incidentally this was the same time the club where advertising season tickets, so maybe it was to lead us into a false sense of security that something is happening? Or again, have they disappeared into the sunset without coming up with the money? It all needs exploring, because surely there is something not right that so many people are interested but then are never heard of again. As said, are we asking too much? Is the club for sale?

Jack Hayward

Jack Hayward, former owner of Wolves, sacrificed everything for the love of his club. Like Kenwright, a lifelong club fan, he realised he could not take his beloved Wolves any further and so for the sake of the future of the club, sold the club for £10, on the proviso that whoever took the club on, injected £30m into the club. Hayward invested millions into Wolves but wanted no return. A superb gift from a football man. Wolves are now ready to build a new stand to increase capacity to 30,000 plus. They are in a position of not having to sell, have a £0 net debt, and have a wealthy owner in Steve Morgan. Now nobody is expecting Kenwright to do that — not at all... But it does make you think, doesn’t it? If Kenwright is such a Big Blue, as he proclaims, surely after 11 years, a solution would have been forthcoming by now? Food for thought...

There are so many issues and concerns that never get answered and it all boils down to the fact we have no communication with the Board whatsoever. Evertonians have more pride than just marching up and down streets and protesting, but it’s getting to a point now where frustrations are ready to boil over. All these issues are facts, and to say we are the People's Club at the moment feels a little bit two-faced.

We would like this to get some attention from the media, some reports and investigations into the goings-on of the once great Everton Football Club. With all due respect to the Boltons, Wigans, Stokes etc of this world, we are a big club: 9 times Champions of England, founder members of the Football League, massive tradition and massive support. We have a fine manager in place, and a nucleus of a decent squad, but it cannot go any further under this regime. The reason we have had good finishes is down to Moyes — not down to the investment in the club. The media have helped with the likes of Liverpool’s situation, Man United’s situation etc... but nothing ever gets said. It is time for answers and it is time for change.

Finch Farm. Liverpool

Everton is run by a Board with a complete lack of vision. For example, we have no assets any more as we have sold everything off. The new training ground we have, Finch Farm, has been sold and we lease it back. We also lease the club shops that we have, which as an FYI is the only place Everton fans can purchase merchandise due to a deal with Kitbag. No high street stores are allowed to sell Everton merchandise. Even the club shop in the corner of the Gwladys Street End is permanently shut now — even on match days! How is this the People's Club, or the best for the fans? As the club motto states ‘nothing but the best is good enough’. Does the Board really abide by our motto? I don’t think so. Evidence also suggests not.

Last summer we had the Dan Gosling affair: He shot to fame with the Blues for scoring a last-minute winner against Liverpool in an FA Cup game. He was waiting for a contract to be offered in writing, but it never came and so his agent looked elsewhere. This angered the club who said they had a gentleman’s agreement. But who has a gentleman’s agreement in modern football? If you want the kid, you get him signed up! Simple.

Gosling went for free and cost us around £4m, his estimated value. It also cost Plymouth some precious money from future sales revenue. The player and particularly his agent are clearly not blameless here, but it should never have got to this situation, and it was another epic failure from the Goodison hierarchy.

The latest debacle is a project behind the Park End stand at Goodison Park. Last year, Everton announced in conjunction with one of its partners, Kitbag, that it was to open up a multi-story complex which would house corporate hospitality, a museum, a café and a restaurant and that it would be of minimal cost to the club.

Great, a lot of fans thought, a step in the right direction. But yet again, the development has stalled and could even have collapsed, and the club has offered three different excuses as to why this has happened. KEIOC talk about this shambles in this piece on their website: At the time of writing this, half the wall around the Park End has been knocked down when work started, but has since just been left there. The errors keep mounting up and it’s only a matter of time before it will catch up with them. There are also continuous rumours from ‘in the know’ people who claim the involvement of Sir Philip Green is increasingly influential. This is rumour of course, but it is something that needs investigating; there is no smoke without fire.

The revenue streams are not good enough for a club our size either. A kit deal with Le Coq Sportif and a bright pink away kit highlights how they consider fans' feelings. How many men going the game would buy a Le Coq Sportif bright pink kit? I cannot remember seeing one, put it that way.


We are never involved in prestigious pre-season tournaments, also a chance to raise the profile in different countries — why not? We have the most famous and favourite player in Australian history playing for us in Tim Cahill. Do we have club shops in Australia, or links to improve communication with the fans over there? Not a chance. How about America through Tim Howard and Landon Donovan’s excursions with the blues? Not a chance. The forward thinking is just not there.

The ambition of the hierarchy just does not match ours. We are losing a young generation of football fans as it is 16 years without a trophy now, the longest period in the club's history. We are over 3,000 season tickets down on sales this time last year. The die-hards will continue to go, every club has them, but a lot of the general public are giving up. Some people are refusing to go now as they will not go and spend their money on a club that is not showing ambition. We have no transfer budget every summer, it’s constantly sell-to-buy. We have to sit back and watch club after club overtake us (at least financially) and now enough is enough.

As my dear old dad says, it’s us he feels for — the younger lads. He has seen us win titles and cups and even watched a World Cup game staged at the then wonderful Goodison Park. It really is heartbreaking to hear of all the triumphs and great sides, from the Holy Trinity to Kendall’s marvels, who I can just about remember, but our younger fans won’t.

There are some fans groups that have been set up with the aim of questioning the Board. KEIOC (Keep Everton in our City) http://www.keioc.net/, were originally set up with the aim of opposing the Kirkby move. It now runs much deeper than that. Its members have reached over 3,000 now, and some great research and insight into the workings of our club have been conducted by the site's founders, and can easily be tracked for views and opinions. A piece by one if its members can be seen here in the Liverpool Echo in February.

Another group has been set up called Evertonians for Change; they have their own website and a face book page which keeps fans up-to-date with their goings on.

We know people support Kenwright too, but feel this is more a case of 'better the devil you know', with some of the failed takeovers that have happened in the Premier League. We are aware of the risks a takeover will bring. However we also believe that keeping this current Board is a bigger risk than what any takeover may yield.

Being cheap and nasty with no future vision will catch up with us in the end. It may be when Moyes leaves, or it may be a poor season. Either way, you cannot continue to punch above your weight for too long, and rely on your manager to over perform, year-in, year-out. Kenwright insists that we need a billionaire, but all it takes is someone to come in with good business acumen and a vision with aims of increasing revenue, and to be open and honest with the fans, which this present Board clearly are not.

We look forward to you investigating and reporting on this, and feel that, if we have the media behind us running with this, we will be able to put some pressure on the Board to at least give us some answers... or ultimately stepping aside to let someone better equipped take over our club.

We do not like doing this, but we will do whatever it takes to oust this board. We are aware that certain media outlets are close to the club, or even ‘friendly’ with certain Board members, so we will be monitoring how this gets reported. However, we offer you the chance to be open and honest with us and approach this from a neutral perspective.


If you investigate properly, you should get a fascinating report out of this, with a growing bandwagon of fans backing this campaign who are now growing tired with the same thing, year-in and year-out. No future, no vision, no ambition, no money and no communication.

The People's Group. 

(Original article courtesy of Toffeeweb)

---

Tony Marsh: Nil Satis Nisi Optimum...

"Only the best is good enough..."

As a lifelong Everton fan I would like to write a piece about the destruction of a once great football club, but I can't. I'm too close to it and I'm too angry. Whatever I wrote would turn into an unmitigated rant, which wouldn't help the situation at all. But there are Everton fans who can write what they feel in a lucid and informative way. And one of those people is Tony Marsh. I make no apologies for printing the full text of what Tony submitted to Toffeeweb, an unofficial Everton site. It's uncensored, and I for one, agree with every word of it.

"It's so hard to get up for games these days. I can't ever remember a time when the fan base at this once great club was so disillusioned and drained of all life as it is now. It's a combination of poor leadership, crap football and a sense of going nowhere as a club/team. We are a rudderless ship heading for the rocks. 

Bill Kenwright - Everton Chairman

I honestly don't have a clue what needs to happen to turn things around at the club but this situation cannot and must not persist like this. The notion that doing fuck all and hoping for the best is a plan astounds me beyond belief.

Let's be honest: Kenwright is a grade A fool if he thinks he can stay put and function at a football club with nothing to contribute but hot air. He has well and truly been found out and the Kings Dock fiasco has finally come home to roost.

Being short of funds is no crime but trying to compete in the Premier League with the slummy out of your arse pocket is. Make no mistake, this could be our last season in the top flight if no one comes in and takes over. 

As for the football being played, it's as bad as it ever was. The disgraceful display against West Ham last week was shocking. Now I know we are skint but that was our strongest side out there and we were out-classed by the Hammers! Blackpool have virtually the same team that got them promoted last season and they knock spots off us as a footballing unit. Blackpool are skint also but do the basics right and their manager and players can out-think and out-play other top sides on a regular basis. WHY the fuck can't we??? 

David Moyes - Everton manager.

I feel the pain we all feel as Evertonians right now and I don't see it getting any better any time soon. We are heading for oblivion with this crowd of jokers in charge.

Where the fuck is Rocky when we need him? Why can't Sylvester give Billy Boy a Sub? Kenwright is a spiv, he has syphoned off all the petrol and we are running on fumes. Unless investment is found soon, we will be getting out to push the old banger down the street to the Championship. 

It's heartbreaking to watch us self-destruct and the less we see and hear from our Beloved Bill the more worrying it becomes. Where the fuck is he and What the fuck is he doing? I don't give a shit about Saturday's Cup game as a win over Chelsea would only paper over the cracks and give Bill a stay of execution. It needs to get a whole lot worse for us before we see any change. What purpose would a win serve other than to create a another smoke screen? 

Everton F.C. 1983-84

I can't hack it any more. I hate football at the moment. I hate everything about the game. I long for the 1980s and the fact that we all had a chance to compete on a level playing field back then. Forest, Villa, Liverpool, Everton, Arsenal all won the League title back in that decade and many others came close. Now... it's just a spending and paying salaries competition. Players don't give a fuck any more - all the twats want is another Baby Bentley for their tart to ponce around in. 

I'm in serious talks with my self at present debating whether or not this is my last season paying to watch shite and have multi-millionaires take the piss out of me every week. Surely this can't be where football in this country ends up... can it? My view now is that watching football these days is like visiting a terminally ill friend in hospital every week pretending to yourself they will get better. Deep down, we know the truth... and, no matter how hard we try to put a brave face on it, we know the end is near. 

Everton F.C. 1881-82

Heartache and misery are two off the things Evertonians know most about. Now though we are becoming sick and tired of it all. Chins are on chests, shoulders are stooped, and there is no spring in the step. We drag ourselves to the game with a sense of fear and trepidation... No fun and no enjoyment guaranteed. Well, if that's all we have left then it's no wonder so many want to opt out. As for me, I am still having a talk with myself about the whole sorry affair. Please don't tell me there is still the FA Cup to play for either - we all know what happens when Moyes gets near to success... don't we? And if that's the case, then no wonder so many want out."

The above piece by Tony Marsh reproduced courtesy of Toffeeweb

---

Ray Cooper: Just standing in the shadows...

Ray Cooper.

My wife first noticed him during an old Elton John concert from the mid nineties, showing on the Sky Arts channel. A short, middle aged guy, shaven head, sunglasses, he was standing at the back of the stage nonchalantly rattling a tambourine. Didn't seem to be doing that much, to be honest.

Then a couple of weeks later we were watching another concert - a tribute to George Harrison from 2002 - and there he was a again. Heavy sunglasses, shaven head, back of the stage, standing in the shadows doing his thing. Every concert we seemed to watch, the man was there and he was so distinctive, it was impossible to miss him.

But who the hell was he?

Eric Clapton - '24 Nights' - 1991

And, of course, now that we'd noticed him, he kept cropping up everywhere. Didn't seem to matter who the artist performing was, the guy with the tambourine was there, rocking away at the back of the stage. And he never seemed to get a credit. The band would take a bow and the mystery man would disappear.

Last night I was watching an Eric Clapton  concert '24 Nights', a series of concerts from the Albert Hall in 1991, and blow me, there he was again, at the back of the stage. And he was doing much more than just tapping a tambourine. So, this time I waited for the credits to roll and found out who he was. 

His name is Ray Cooper, and he does much more than bang a tambourine. Much more. Born 19 September 1945, in Watford, Hertfordshire, he is a session and road-tour percussionist and occasional actor, who has worked with many of the great and good of the rock world, including Eric Clapton, AC/DC, Weezer, and most notably, Elton John, with whom he has played on every album.

His career started in the early sixties, recording with The Who and The Rolling Stones, notably playing percussion on the Stones 1974 It's Only Rock'n Roll album. He recorded with George Harrison, Wings and Art Garfunkel in the early seventies before moving on to record with Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Eric Clapton, Mark Knopfler, Roger Waters, The Traveling Wilburys, Maynard Ferguson and Ravi Shankar among others.

Elton John and Ray Cooper - 1993.

In the late seventies Cooper toured with Elton John as a duo in which Elton would play a solo set and then be joined by Cooper on percussion for the second half of the concert. The tour included concerts in Russia (1979), and in the course of the tour Cooper became a massive favorite with Elton John fans for his expressive energy and his incredible drum work.

The success of the "Solo" tour was repeated in 1993-1994 when he and Elton brought their two man show to a new generation in the United States. More recently, Cooper reunited with Elton John in the autumn of 2009, with a series of shows in France and Italy

Ray Cooper's relationship with the Rolling Stones continued into the eighties. In 1981, he contributed to Bill Wyman's third solo album. In 1983, he participated in a short tour for the Ronnie Lane ARMS Charity Concert along with Eric Clapton, Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck and other stars (including Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts). In 1985, Cooper appeared on both Mick Jagger's She's the Boss album and Bill Wyman's Willie & The Poor Boy.

Popeye - 1980

He has also worked in films, playing small roles such as the preacher in Robert Altman's feature film Popeye (1980) starring Robin Williams and Shelley Duvall. Cooper produced and performed music in several of Terry Gilliam's productions, appearing on-screen in quirky roles like the technician who swats the beetle at the beginning of Gilliam's 1985 film Brazil and as the functionary whispering in the ear of Jonathan Pryce's Horatio Jackson character in 1989's The Adventures of Baron Munchausen.

In the 1995 'Evening With Elton John and Ray Cooper' tours the two men performed in Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Venezuela and Costa Rica, Elton would perform a setlist of songs by himself and his piano, and would then be joined by Cooper on percussion and drums for the second half of the show.

When touring with Eric Clapton, the band would play 'Sunshine of your Love', which would then flow into a short one-minute drum solo by Steve Farrone (drummer for Clapton's band currently), then into the now famous 7-minute percussion solo by Ray Cooper on the tambourine, congas, and gong.

Ray Cooper - 2010.

In the middle of the solo Cooper would lead the audience into a chant lasting about a minute, then finish the solo by breaking the giant gong after hitting it 10 times.

Which wasn't a bad way to finish a concert.

So, if you notice a bald guy wearing heavy sunglasses, standing at the back of the stage, you'll know who it is. It's Ray Cooper, a rock star who stands in the shadows.

---

Order of the Garter: Honi soit qui mal y pense.

A half crown - 1921

If you live in London, you've seen it a million times and probably haven't noticed. If you are visiting London on holiday, or just passing through on the top of a bus, you'll see it at least half a dozen times before you reach your destination.

It appears everywhere. On public buildings, military banners, cap badges, buttons, coins - it even appears on the lamp posts running down the Mall and on the gates of a car park in Mayfair.

And according to William Bligh's notebook, one of the mutinous crew of the Bounty, a certain James Morrison, had it, "...Tatowed with a Star under his left Breast & a Garter round his Left Leg..."

It's the royal motto... Honi soit qui mal y pense.

The Royal Coat of Arms

Look closely at the garter which surrounds the shield on the Royal Coat of Arms, pictured right. This garter (you can see the buckle just below the paw of the lion on the left) symbolises an ancient order of knighthood of which the present Queen is sovereign.

The Most Noble Order of the Garter was founded in 1348 by King Edward III as a noble fraternity consisting of the King, the Prince of Wales (or heir-apparent to the throne) and 24 Knights Companion. It is to this day the highest of the English orders, with a membership of under 30 people.

Various legends account for the origin of the Order. The most popular legend involves the Countess of Salisbury. While she was dancing with or near King Edward at Eltham Palace, her garter is said to have slipped from her leg. When the surrounding courtiers sniggered, the king picked it up and tied it to his leg, exclaiming, "Honi soit qui mal y pense," ("Shamed be the person who thinks evil of it."), the phrase that has become the motto of the Order.

According to another legend, King Richard I was inspired in the 12th century by St George the Martyr while fighting in the Crusades to tie garters around the legs of his knights, who subsequently won the battle. King Edward supposedly recalled the event in the 14th century when he founded the Order. Another explanation is that the motto refers to Edward's claim to the French throne, and the Order of the Garter was created to help pursue this claim. The use of the garter as an emblem may have derived from straps used to fasten armour

As the highest and oldest English Order of Chivalry, the Garter is one of the most important of all such Orders throughout the world. Male members of the Order are titled "Knights Companion," and female members are called "Ladies Companion."

Formerly, the Sovereign filled vacancies upon the nomination of the members. Each member would nominate nine candidates, of whom three had to have the rank of Earl or higher, three the rank of Baron or higher, and three the rank of Knight or higher. The Sovereign would choose as many nominees as were necessary to fill any vacancies in the Order.

From the 18th century, the Sovereign made his or her choices on the advice of Government. However, King George VI believed that the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Thistle had become too linked with political patronage. In 1946, with the agreement of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, membership in these two orders became a personal gift of the Sovereign. Thus, the Sovereign personally selects Knights and Ladies Companion of the Garter, and need not act on the advice of Government.

Windsor Castle

The home of the Order is St George's Chapel, Windsor. Every knight is required to display a banner of his arms in the Chapel, together with a helmet and crest, coat of arms, sword and an enamelled stallplate above his pew in the choir.

This achievement is taken down on the knight's death and the insignia returned to the Sovereign. The stallplates remain as a memorial and these now constitute one of the finest collections of heraldry in the world. Every St. George's Day the Monarch and Knights walk in triumphal procession at Windsor Castle to St. George's Chapel, preceded by Her Majesty's heralds.

HRH Queen Elizabeth II

The insignia of the Order have developed over the centuries: starting with a garter and badge depicting St George and the Dragon. A collar was added in the sixteenth century, and the star and broad riband in the seventeenth century. A fine cloak and hat complete the insignia.

The hat is a Tudor bonnet of black velvet with a plume of white ostrich and black heron feathers. Although the collar may not be decorated with precious stones, the other insignia can be decorated according to taste. George IV (formerly the Prince Regent under George III) was well-known for his vanity, and had 55 different Garter badges of varying styles.



One of the most famous displays of insignia was seen at the execution of King Charles I in 1649, when the King, much to the chagrin of his enemies, proudly walked to the gallows wearing his full regalia of the Order of the Garter.

On the death of a member, the badge and star are returned personally to the Sovereign by the former member's nearest male relative, and the other insignia to the Central Chancery of the Orders of Knighthood. The Sovereign may also "degrade" members who have committed serious crimes, such as treason or who have taken up arms against her.

During the First World War, two Royal Knights and six Stranger Knights, all monarchs or princes of enemy nations and including Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany and Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria, were struck off the roll of the Order or had their appointments annulled in 1915.

The banner of Emperor Hirohito of Japan was removed from St. George's chapel when Japan entered World War II in 1941, but that banner and the Japanese monarch's knighthood were restored by Elizabeth II in 1971, when the Emperor made a State visit to the United Kingdom. He was particularly pleased by the restoration of his banner as a Knight of the Garter. Curiously, Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, despite Italy's entry into World War II, remained a Stranger Knight throughout the war. His banner was removed only after his death in exile in 1947.

But why was French used for the motto of an English king? Old heraldic mottoes almost always used Latin. The answer is probably quite simple.

If King Edward III wanted to provoke the French before making his cross-channel territorial claims, the natural choice for the motto would, of course, be French.  

So, Honi soit qui mal y pense, it was, and shamed be the person who thinks evil of it.

---

Chuck Ross: Proving a point...

Hollywood rejection letter 1920

Have you ever submitted a script to a studio or an agent? I have - several times. Most came back with letters of rejection attached detailing every reason you could possibly think of for rejection. The script wasn't good enough, the story was weak, they couldn't see a market, etc, etc. Some detailed rejection letters were quite humorous, as it was possible to see that the returned script had not even been opened, let alone read. 

You would imagine that the people who worked in the movie industry, agents, producers, directors would recognise a well written script when it dropped onto their desk. Wouldn't you? In 1982, freelance writer Chuck Ross asked himself the same question, but unlike the rest of us he did something about it.  

Casablanca is arguably the most famous movie in the history of film. It won the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1943, and was voted as one of the top three American films ever made by the American Film Institute. It's a movie that everyone in the film industry should instantly be able to recognize - you would think.

If Casablanca was submitted to them as a newly written script would contemporary Hollywood movie agents be able to recognize it? Or failing that, would they at least be able to recognize it as great writing? To find out, Ross devised an experiment. He retyped the script of Casablanca, changed its title to "Everybody Comes to Rick's" (the title of the original play by Murray Burnett and Joan Alison), changed the name of Rick's sidekick from Sam to Dooley (after Dooley Wilson, the actor who played that character), and submitted it to 217 agencies as a script supposedly by an unknown writer, "Erik Demos." 

Of the 217 agencies Ross sent the script of Casablanca to, ninety returned it unread. They did so for various reasons - it was their policy not to read unsolicited manuscripts, they weren't taking on new clients, or they were no longer in the agency business. Seven never responded. Eighteen scripts apparently got lost in the mail. Thirty-three agencies actually recognized the script. For instance, Alan Green of the Gage Group wrote back to Ross, "Unfortunately I've seen this picture before: 147 times to be exact."

Eight noticed a similarity to Casablanca, but didn't realize it was Casablanca. However, thirty-eight agencies claimed to have read it, but rejected it. In other words, of those agencies that actually read the manuscript (or claimed to have), the majority did not recognise it as Casablanca, nor did they think the script was good enough to be worth representing.

The comments Ross received included:

"I just think you need to rework it... you have excessive dialogue at times."

"To bridge the gap between 'talented writer', which you now are, and 'professional writer', which is yet to come, you need professional help. And that will have to be paid for. I could recommend a 'literary surgeon' who would help you, but are you ready to accept professional help????"

"I think the dialogue could have been sharper and I think the plot had a tendency to ramble. It could've been tighter and there could have been a cleaner line to it."

"I gave you five pages to grab me -- didn't do it."

"Too much dialogue, not enough exposition, the story line was weak, and in general didn't hold my interest."

"Story line is thin. Too much dialogue for amount of action. Not enough highs and lows in the script."

"I strongly recommend that you leaf through a book called Screenplay by Syd Field, especially the section pertaining to dialogue. This book may be an aid to you in putting a professional polish on your script, which I feel is its strongest need."

Perhaps strangest of all, three agencies expressed a desire to represent the work. A representative of the Lil Cumber Attractions Agency asked Ross who he might have in mind to play the character of Rick. The following conversation ensued:

Ross: "Humphrey Bogart." 

Lil Cumber Rep: "I meant somebody available now."

Ross: "Somebody like Bogart..." 

Finally, the Irv Schecter Co., after not replying for six months, contacted Ross to ask permission to send the script to a literary agent to see about the possibility of turning it into a novel. Ross's experiment led him to conclude that many movie agents have difficulty recognizing both well-known screenplays and quality writing, and also that submissions by unknown writers stand little chance of getting published.

But this wasn't the first time Chuck Ross had embarrassed the literary world. Back in 1975 he was selling cable TV door-to-door, and dreaming of becoming a writer. However, he felt the odds were stacked against him since the publishing industry seemed incapable of recognizing talent. To prove his theory, he typed up twenty-one pages of a highly acclaimed book and sent it unsolicited to four publishers (Random House, Houghton Mifflin, Doubleday, and Harcourt Brace Jovanovich), claiming it was his own work.

'Steps' by Jerzy Kosinski.

The work he chose for this experiment was Steps, by Jerzy Kosinski. It had won the National Book Award for Fiction in 1969 and by 1975 had sold over 400,000 copies. All four publishers rejected the work, including Random House, who was its original publisher.

When Ross described this experiment in Harper's Bookletter (now defunct), his methodology was criticized. George Plimpton argued that his cover letter sounded too casual. (It started off with "Hello.") Kosinski himself argued that Ross should have typed and sent the entire manuscript. He wrote, "It [Steps] depends very much on cumulative effect. I can see myself rejecting it... It would have been much more interesting if he had submitted the whole work... I've never submitted a fragment of my work to anyone."

To address this criticism, Ross repeated the experiment in 1979. This time he submitted the entire book to fourteen publishers (the original four plus The Atlantic Monthly Press; Farrar, Straus & Giroux; Harper & Row; Alfred A. Knopf; Seymour Lawrence; David McKay; Macmillan; William Morrow; Prentic-Hall; and Viking). He also used the pseudonym Erik Demos, in case someone recognized his name from the earlier experiment.

Jerzy Kosinski.

Again, every publisher rejected the work. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, publisher of Kosinski's Being There, commented, "While your prose style is very lucid, the content of the book didn't inspire the level of enthusiasm here that a publisher should have for any book on their list in order to do well by it."

Houghton Mifflin, publisher of Kosinski's The Painted Bird, wrote:

"Several of us read your untitled novel here with admiration for writing and style. Jerzy Kosinski comes to mind as a point of comparison when reading the stark, chilly episodic incidents you have set down. The drawback to the manuscript, as it stands, is that it doesn't add up to a satisfactory whole. It has some very impressive moments, but gives the impression of sketchiness and incompleteness."

Ross commented that, "Evidently, Kosinski is not as good as Kosinski when Demos is the name on the envelope."

Next Ross sent queries to twenty-six literary agents. Again, no agent offered to represent him. Ross wrote that, "no one, neither publishers nor agents, recognized Kosinski's already published book. Even more disappointing was the fact that no one thought it deserved to see print."

Won't stop the rest of us from trying though - will it?

Information courtesy of: 

 Ross, Chuck. (November-December, 1982). "The Great Script Tease."

Ross, Chuck. (February 12, 1979). "Rejected." 

---