Mr. John Houlding branded a shylock


March 7, 1892
The circular issued on Saturday tells us that “Mr. John Houlding had not the courtesy to reply to any of our communications”.

Courtesy from a shylock?
Courtesy from a brewer?
Courtesy from a publican?

How can Mr. George Mahon expect it?

We are told that brewers are not financing the club. This information we must be thankful for, though it comes somewhat late in the day. But May I ask why is brewers financing the club?

Would Mr. Mahon lead us to believe that a firm of brewers has not been treated with – in fact that a long series of negotiations has not taken place between the representatives of a well known brewery and certain members of the committee? And that the negotiations fell through for certain reasons. Let Mr. Mahon give a clear answer, and let us have the whole truth.

Mr. Mahon asks why has the prospectus not been issued? Another subterfuge. For does he not know that both the treasurers (with a faithfulness worthy of commendation) and the committee refused a list of members to Mr. Houlding?

The remark at the conclusion of this black-letter circular about supporting the “good old original Everton Football Club” won’t deceive anyone. A lot Mr. Mahon knows about the original club! But he ought to know that an Everton F.C. without Mr. Houlding is an impossibility, and that the huge sum of £1,000 promised by certain members of the committee will only be a drop in the Goodison Road mud.
(Source: Field Sports: March 7, 1892)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.