He was simply saying without placing the financial security of the club in jeopardy, that is what is meant by "off the pitch". You completely misunderstood the meaning of the statement I’m afraid. He was simply saying the same thing everyone at the club has been saying for months now, that we will spend what we can without being too risky and end up like a Leeds. Nothing more.

I felt physically ill reading Chairman Mao’s, sorry Kenwright’s Christmas address. Talk about delusions of grandeur! I don’t want to hear Kenright’s views on the importance of Christmas etc. Who cares what he thinks apart from him and his pet dogs(not including Philip Carter, Elstone et al) Bill, just concentrate on selling our club and make bloody sure we sign 2 strikers at the start of January, not messing about until 11 59 on Jan 31st.

Gareth, maybe when you own a football club then you can write you own message. As Bill owns it so therefore he needs to write a message. If he didn’t you’d moan and when he does you moan. I might or might not be a fan of Bill but he has the right to talk about Everton considering he owns it!!

David, I think I’ve already said on here many times that our great leader or Billy bullshit depending on your view, did take fiancial advice off Peter Ridsdale the man who got Leeds in all that smelly stuff.

Happy Christmas Rich! Bill also has also told us he has taken financial advice from Philip Green and Terry Leahy, two of the UK’s most successful businessmen over the past fifteen years. So?

Are you suggesting that you see things in our financial dealings similar to what Ridsdale did at Leeds? If so, could you tell us what those things are?

Before the onslaught: I think Bill has done a moderate, no better, job at running the club, and I think he needs to sell... But I don’t see any evidence that we are close to bankruptcy like Leeds.

Merry Christmas, Neil, is this where you and I have a string of messages as long as your arm I provide figures and facts you simply provide your feelings with know substance and at the end you say "Rich, it?s ok for you and I to disagree"? After all, Neil I think we agree he's at least not doing the best of jobs, but where you and I differ is that you're prepared for him to move us out of the city to get rid of him and allow him to make a killing in the process with no benefit to Everton.

Merry Christmas Neil, is this where you and i have a string of messages as long as your arm I provide figures and facts you simply provide your feelings with know substance and at the end you say Rich it’s ok for you and I to disagree. After all Neil I think we agree hes at least not doing the best of jobs, but where you and I differ is that your prepared for him to move us out of the city to get rid of him and allow him to make a killing in the process with no benefit to Everton.

Merry Christmas Rich! Can you explain to me again how Bill makes more of a killing by moving us to Kirkby than by doing anything else? Why would someone pay more for the club if the Kirkby move is going to be an obvious financial disaster for it?

By the way, I don’t think I have ever seen a single figure from you Rich. Just like on this occasion. You are suggesting for the umpteenth time that Kenwright is potentially taking us the way of Risdale’s Leeds into bankruptcy. I say: could you provide us all some details on this please Rich? Can you?

By the way Rich: how come Kenwright is BOTH taking us into bankruptcy a la Risdale AND about to make a stonking killing by selling the club when we move to Kirkby?? Some feat!

Merry Christmas to both Niel and Rich, aka The Bitch Brothers. It?s panto season already... Oh no he isn?t... Oh yes he is.

He is the ultimate salesman ? of himself ? and he really loves and believes in the product. That is his main method of doing business, selling the show to the investors (technically termed Angels). It is about bums on seats, the Sky bums mostly and of course his bum on the chairmans seat. >But if a large wedge of cash is offered it will be, sod the proles, ingrates to a man, gimme gimme...

Meanwhile back at the evil Grand Vizer?s or is that Prince Charming... HE! (points loudly and slaps thigh) Is behind everything.... Oh no he isn?t.... Oh yes he is... and so it goes on.

What about Buttons?? You mean the couple that's left in the bottom of the cash box? Scene shifts to Old Mother Noblett's cupboard and just like her sister?s, Old Mother Hubbard its boracic.

Thanks for the laugh, Derek. You do have a point! To quote Monty Python, I think Bill is actually just a bit of a naughty boy most of the time (often rather silly), and nowhere near as important (for good or ill) as one would think given all the time spent on him here. Best wishes of the season!

Not only is Bill a great impressario, he?ll be remembered as the man who saved the toffees financially and appointed our best ever coach, Moyes. Will someone tell that idiot outside the ground at Liege that fact? Merry Christmas future to all Toffees.

Why does Ian Ross write this sickly sentimental crap and then make his employer look such a queen by putting his name to it? Surely the two of them can see how false it reads?Then, maybe not ? they are both as thick (sick) as each other!

Billy Bullshit strikes again!

What a set of miserable twats some of you are! I wonder if the Shite's or Man Utd's yankee owners or anyone else's chairman has even spared a thought for the paying fans? Some people are just trying to stir up trouble, shame on you!

This is the best Everton side since the 80s. We have been spoilt over the last few seasons compared to how bad we were in the 90s, average football and relegation fights every season almost. We now have a strong club with good players. Give Kenwright a break, get a grip and get yourselves down to Goodison tomorrow and support the club. I will be.

A lot of you sound like spoilt kids who get too much for Christmas each year but still want more. I find it really difficult to understand when so many people became so disconnected from reality.

The miracles David Moyes is performing on the pitch and what BK is doing off it with his band of helpers, follows, lemmings and yes men are seperate issues and I?m delighted at what Moyes is achieving despite the off-the-field antics.

Neil, I suggest you read the last article from Michael on our financial situation that's been put on today. As I've said before, there is a difference between Everton making money and BK making money.

I think you even said on the "Confused? You will be" article that Bill stood to make a lot of money out of Everton whether we move or not... oh yes you did. here?s what you said:

Let?s clear some ground first. Almost whatever he now does, Kenwright will make a very good return on his shares relative to what he originally paid for them. That is simply because, in the current market, Premiership clubs are seen as more attractive investments than they were ten or more years ago (not least because of globalisation, the internet, merchandising etc. etc.). ... and it goes on, Neil.

Neil is at least persistent in denying the simple maths that have been cited numerous times. The £52M windfall that will supposedly be coming in the shape of Destination Kirkby will have a MASSIVE impact on the valuation of the club, and therefore on the value of Bill Kenwright’s shares.

Neil likes to downplay this and blathers on about NPV of future sales, which has already been shown by others to be only part of the story. Yet we have just had the acting CEO confirming how much more attractive EFC will be to future buyers with DK in the bag.

Without DK, Everton may be valued at around £100M. With DK confirmed and in progress, it would be worth closer to £200M. Anyone with a major shareholding in the club would see a MASSIVE return on their investment if sold under such a scenario.

That is if people are still fool enough to be buying football clubs in the current economic meltdown...

First of all Rich, I’m not sure why you are quoting me back at myself in such a "gotcha!" manner. You are confused. Of course I am not denying that Bill will make money when he sells Everton. I am not an idiot. Market conditions have changed, football clubs are worth more, he will make money. The major point I was making was about Kirkby, not about the value of the club in general under
different scenarios. Of course Bill will make money. You are maintaining that Kirkby will destroy the club financially but handsomely reward Bill. I am saying that is idiotic.

If you read the rest of the particular post which contains that quote, you would see that what I was saying was that we were not in my opinion going to Kirkby in order simply to make money for Kenwright. Which is what I take it you believe. You will see my reasons for this belief in the post you are quoting at me. You haven’t responded to them in any way, so I can assume you either agree with me or don’t have an answer.

And sorry Michael, but you simply don’t understand financial matters - there is really no other way now of saying it to you. You are maintaining that Kirkby will make Everton worth more, even though you believe it will make the club less cash generative in the future. But why on earth would someone plonk down more cash to receive less back?? Can’t you see that this makes no sense at all?

If owning the Kirkby asset leads to someone paying more for the club than they would do otherwise, this can only be because they believe that it will provide them with a higher cash return in the future. There is no other possible (financial) reason. The value of the Kirkby asset is irrelevant in itself, because IT CANNOT BE SOLD AS AN ASSET. That is what it means to say it is ’illiquid’.

Michael, would you pay me twice as much for my business if it included a new property which my brother had just given me for half its value - but which you would never be able to sell in itself? If so, I have a deal for you!

Try to understand it this way. The assets which any new owner will look very carefully at when they buy are the ONES THAT CAN BE SOLD. For example - they will be extremely interested in the contractual situations and potential sell-on values of Messrs. Lescott, Arteta, Yakubu, Cahill and Fellaini. Not in the book-keeping value of a stadium they can’t sell.

On the ’others’ who have said that cash is "only part of the story" - I assume you were talking about Jay who said in response to me that the values of businesses are determined by ’net asset value plys goodwill’. I’m afraid this is nonsense. You can’t spend goodwill and you can’t spend assets (although you can sell SOME of them) - but what matters is the cash that the latter generate (goodwill is simply a technical accounting term of no relevance to company valuation).

But I have now said this dozens of times. And some of you still want to believe that we are moving to Kirkby to make money for Bill, even though you think this will be an obvious financial disaster for the club. But some idiot will come along and pay Bill out massively despite this obvious financial catastrophe because... well, you tell me. I give up.

Again, just in case I am not clear. Kirkby in my opinion WILL make Everton worth more - because we will generate more revenues and therefore cash as a result of moving there.

The £52M windfall (strange how you guys admit what a great deal Kirkby is when you want to bash Bill!) is relevant because it is a cheap way of acquiring this cash generative asset. But if we still spend say £78M getting hold of the asset and make no greater cash returns - we have spent too much! We shouldn’t have bothered. We would have done better staying put at GP.

Michael and Rich, you do NOT believe that Kirkby will generate more revenues and cash for the club. Rich at least thinks so far as I can tell that it may send us into bankruptcy. So you CANNOT logically believe that Kirkby makes the club worth more.

Put at its simplest: Rich at least is maintaining that someone will pay more for a club running the risk of bankruptcy than one which, if we simply stayed at GP, would be much healthier financially. WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT???

Neil, you do blather on... and on... and on. Constructing an argument for me that I am not making, and conflating ACTUAL future value and revenues with PERCIEVED future values and revenues.

Of course anyone buying Everton FC with the DK bonus is going to PERCEIVE they are getting a good deal, be it increased income, or increased asset value (due in MAJOR part to the £52M windfall...) or BOTH! Now, as far as the postulated sale of EFC is concerned, neither the sellers nor the buyers (nor you, nor me, nor Rich) can know what that it is ACTUALLY going to be worth to them in them future. No amount of fancy financial modelling can guarantee a bean.

But, if I?m Bill Kenwright and I?m trying to make the most of this for myself, what do I do? I say it?s "The Deal of the Century", I say it will drive up our future income generating potential (the key there is by HOW MUCH? ? and that?s what nobody really knows), and I say this is too good an opportunity for us to miss out on. As a willing buyer, of course you are going to believe the hype, and make sure the due diligence jives right along.

But here?s the bit we do know... We do know that Everton will get a windfall in assest value of £52M. You claim that won?t affect the percieved value of the club because it is "illiquid". I say utter bollocks to that. I say the club will be worth AT LEAST £52M more in percieved value to a potential buyer, if and only if the DK scenario plays out.

In other words the club, when sold on, will be worth far far more (we are talking millions of pounds in asset value here) than it will without DK. That simple fact cannot possibly be ignored in the way you claim. It means a MASSIVE payday for Bill and his chums.

The issue you keep raising about futuure bankruptcy is totally irrelevant, so stop conflating them. DK could be a financial success or it could be a financial failure. But they are FUTURE scenarios that occur AFTER the sale of the club that will be HUGELY beneficial financially to the current sharholders.

Just to be clear, the shareholders may make a good RoI without Kirkby... if they can find a buyer. But the shareholders stand to make a fantastic RoI if they secure Kirkby and then find a buyer. It?s a simple idea, Neil. See if you can focus just on that.

Sorry Michael, but you just don’t understand finance! And you do talk nonsense I am afraid.

A new investor is PRECISELY AND ONLY interested in making their investment based on their best estimate of FUTURE costs and revenues (i.e. future cashflows). So they really will only pay more for Everton with Kirkby than Everton without Kirkby if they think the cashflows IN THE FUTURE are better in the case of the former than in the case of the latter. There is no such thing as a CURRENT VALUE of a business abstracted from the future - it is an utterly meaningless concept. (Why would I pay you a lot of money for a business right now, only to find I was going to lose my shirt every year for the next five years?? Think about it.)

They will certainly NOT pay £52M more for the club because of a paper increase in net asset value that is unrealisable in cash terms. They won’t Michael, because they would be absolutely mad to do so. I advise people on financial matters Michael and I would be regarded as utterly incompetent and would be immediately dismissed if I told someone to pay more for a business for the reason you are stating.

If the shareholders make a better deal with Kirkby, Michael, it will be because some rich football investor thinks that Kirkby makes the club financially healthier in the medium to long term. It’s a simple idea, Michael. See if you can focus on that!

By the way, Michael, you argue that the reason why someone will pay more for Kirkby is because "they will believe the hype" and "will make sure the due diligence jives along" - i.e. they are an idiot who does not do a proper financial evaluation. Do you REALLY believe this is very likely?

Neil, here?s where your financial logic breaks down.

The major shareholders in Everton FC have (supposedly) invested in an asset, not to derive income from that asset, but simply to hold it in the belief that it will increase in value over time, at the point where they sell it on to a new buyer. If the club?s overall financial performance improves over that time, then you might expect the club to be worth more, but the shareholders of Everton FC get nothing directly from the day-to-day business operations of the club ? what you call FUTURE costs and revenues (i.e. future cashflows) ? that is the business side of the club and it is totally divorced from the club as an investment asset. There is no net income stream that goes to benefit the major shareholders, so the entire basis of your argument vaporizes into thin air.

The investment is in the asset value of the club, be it real or perceived. Nothing else. There is no dividend. There is no profit-sharing. The club barely makes a profit in a good year. And if they do, that profit is likely rolled back in to pay for players (fees or wages). If the cash-flow is negative, the line of credit increases, simple as. The Directors don?t even take a salary (although I?d be interested to see if anyone can figure out what they might be raking off in "expenses"... but I digress).

So, back to the Deal of the Century. Bill Kenwright and his chums are very keen on the Kirkby deal because they will stand to make a huge amount of money if DK is approved and if a buyer believes the hype and gets the right people doing the due diligence to support the whole idea (and Neil, we all know only too well the kind of shenanigans that go on in the financial markets ? please don?t insult our intelligence by trying to deny it).

I understand that you might find this prospect unpalatable ? it will be tough for many Evertonians to see Bill Kenwright walk away with a huge profit when he does sell up. But that?s what long-term investment in an asset is all about... and it is simply made all the sweeter when a kindly local authority ponies up an additional £52M asset injection ? an extra-thick layer of cream on the top, if you like.

You can go on believing it won?t happen like that if you want. You can keep rattling off this NPV business model crapola if it makes you feel better about what?s on the cards... but there are those of us who recognize what?s going on and are not averting their eyes from the painful truth: Bill Kenwright and his chums stand to make a massive financial killing if DK is approved, and if they can then find a willing buyer for the club.

Neil if you dont know the difference between capital asset value or (capial gain) and income yields I fear for you?re clients financial well-being, I think you have done a great job on this thread of destoying any creditability you had left.

Well guys, we will just have to agree to see things differently on this. I am stunned by your sentence Michael that "the business side of the club is totally divorced from its value as an investment asset".

So it LITERALLY in your view doesn’t make any difference to what someone is prepared to pay for the club whether or not its revenues exceeds its costs in future years? Are you serious Michael? On your view it would be fine if you thought the club was going to lose money for the next five years - you would still pay the same amount for it now (based on its current asset value)? This is simply nonsense.

And Rich, of course I understand the difference between asset values and income yields. This is precisely why I do not believe what you and Michael do - that the value of a business is solely determined by its net asset value. That would indeed destroy my credibility, indeed it would put me out of a job.

You guys are basically driven by an obsessive hatred of Kenwright, which means that you desperately want to believe two incompatible things: Kirkby will be an obvious financial catastrophe for the club, and yet Kenwright will make a fortune out of Kirkby.

The only way they can both be true is if an idiot investor comes along who does not understand finance - which is what you Michael revealingly referred to in your first post above.

I suggest you relax the hatred of Kenwright a bit and regain your financial sanity.

By the way, I would be very interested to know how you guys explain Ashley apparently pulling the sale of Newcastle.

In your financial worlds, nothing has changed: the Newcastle FC business is still worth exactly the same as it was before (its net asset value). And if that its ’real’ value (forget that NPV cashflow ’hoopla’ as you charmingly call it Michael) - why is there no-on willing to pay this same amount anymore?

You don’t think perhaps the reason might be that BUSINESS circumstances have changed (although I know you think these are irrelevant Michael)? Perhaps future cashflows (although I hesitate to mention them) don’t look quite so rosy now, so Ashley can’t get anyone to pay for the club what he was hoping for.

Anyway, I need to do some work deciding whether a friend of mine should buy a business. He’s sent me five years of detailed cost and revenue projections he’s worked up, but you’ve convinced me and I am going to ignore them and simply tell him to pay the net asset value.

Guys, join the real world again!! It’s really a lot easier here.

To end this dispute I attach a link to the Wikipedia article on company valuation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valuation_(finance).

I can provide many other sources, but this has the merit of being short. As you will see, the major method cited for an ?absolute? company valuation is discounted cashflow analysis. This is the standard method used in business and has been for decades.

The other ?relative? method is looking at the value of other similar businesses (in this case this would be other football clubs). But, when these are widely different, you have to go back to absolute measures such as DCF or NPV to decide what something is worth.

You will note that nowhere is it mentioned that a reputable method of business valuation is simply looking at net asset values. That is because it isn?t. Especially when you are dealing with illiquid assets that you cannot separate out from the business as whole and sell independently or put to a different business purpose.

Perhaps now we can close this charming excursion into financial theory and get back to the footie?

Neil, it?s rather telling when you start losing the argument that you have to resort to the emotional weaponry. You have no idea what my feelings are about Bill Kenwright, and why would that have anything to do with this anyway?

Frankly, I don?t understand your motives for denying the obvious simplicity of this. Love or hate Bill Kenwright, it makes no difference to the fact that he and his chums stand to make one hell of a lot MORE money from the sale of their shareholder equity in Everton FC Co Ltd, if the club secures Destination Kirkby as currently advertised.

You can talk business valuation until the cows come home... what a new owner will be buying is shareholder equity. The shareholder equity will be boosted by £52M that will directly increase its perceived value. Therefore, if the club is sold, it will be sold for a far greater total price (or price per share) than it would otherwise command. Why do you continue to deny this?

If you seriously believe that Kenwright and his chums would get LESS for Everton if they sell up without the promise of Destination Kirkby, then Neil you are seriously off your rocker.

You seriously don’t understand finance, Michael! The club will not be worth £52M automatically as a result of acquring Kirkby, whatever you say. That is simply not how businesses are valued, and you can ignore this point for as long as you like, but you will still be wrong. What someone will pay for the club will be driven by what they take to be its future business prospects - what on earth else could it be driven by? Would you buy a business based on anything else?

People investing in businesses pay cash in the hope that they will get more cash back than they originally put in. It’s not complicated!

Of course I believe that Bill will get more because of Kirkby - but the question is: why do YOU Michael? I believe he will get more because Kirkby is a cheap way of getting hold of a new stadium that will make more money for the club in the future. I assume that a potential buyer will believe that too and so will be prepared to pay more for the club.

But you Michael DON’T believe it will make more money for the club, in fact I think you believe as a result of Kirkby Everton FC will be financially WORSE off. But someone will nevertheless pay more for the club, because.... ????

You then have to square the circle by assuming that we will be taken over by a commercial idiot who does not understand the first principles of business valuation. I don’t think that is very likely.

But we have been through all this before... You might try reading the Wikipedia article or indeed any number of books on company valuation which would tell you, Michael, that really you are simply wrong on these matters.

I know exactly the sort of people who will be consulted to advise any prospective buyer on what they should pay for Everton FC. I can absolutely assure you Michael, on my own deathbed, that they will primarily determine their valuation based on an assessment of future cashflows. They would simply laugh at the idea that they should automatically pay £52M more because Everton paid that much less for their new stadium than it originally cost to build. They would say: ’Great! But is the new stadium going to make more money for the club?’ Of course they would. This is just common sense.

I really don’t know what else to say to you anymore Michael! Trust me, trust any financial textbook or expert, trust any standard thinking on this matter - you really are wrong on this point.

Neil, what is your educated guess at the current valuation of Everton FC?

Michael, the current ?market valuation?, based on the current price of our shares, is presumably well known (there is a market of sorts to buy them). I think someone on this site recently indicated this valued at the club as somewhere around £50M.

But that doesn?t require any sort of "guess", so I assume you are asking something else. Namely: what do I think some new owner might PAY for the business of Everton Football Club? I.e. how THEY would value the business, and therefore what return Kenwright might get.

As normal there would be a substantial premium paid on the current ?market price?. I have no real idea what exactly that would be, but, as my really only point has been all along, I know how it would be calculated. Someone would project our expected cash inflows and outflows, under various scenarios good and bad, and come up with a range of what the business might be worth. They would also of course factor in debt repayments.

If Kirkby was signed up for by that time, then they would pay more for the club if they thought Kirkby made more money for us, and less for the club if they thought it would make less money for us.

In this torrent of words, Michael, that has only ever been my point. People invest in businesses based on what sort of future they think they have.

Bill will get a higher return on his Everton shares if someone with the money to buy us thinks that Kirkby was an overall good financial move for the club. If they think it wasn?t (like you and Rich), Bill will obviously still get more for his shares than he paid for them - but for his own personal interest he would have been better doing something else with the club than taking it to Kirkby. Perhaps incrementally rebuilding GP for example, if that will produce better business results into the future for a lower initial cash outlay.

This is my final try Michael, but it might be worth a shot!

Why do you think Liverpool as a business is worth more than Everton?

Here are the two possibilities we have been discussing.

Your view is that this must have something to do with Liverpool’s book assets over liabilities being worth more than Everton’s, so that their ’shareholders equity’ is higher. Presumably Anfield is a more valuable asset than Goodison, and the total of all their players is worth more. They have much higher debt levels, so it can’t be that.

Here’s my view. Liverpool is a much stronger business as an ongoing going concern. They have stronger revenues from everything: season ticket sales, attendances, merchandising, TV fees, corporate and entertainmnent facilities etc. etc. etc.. That is why they are worth more. This is why the two yanks paid alot of money for them, and why DIC would also pay a lot for them.

Does this help?

I?ll hold your coat, Michael!!

Guys, I’d MUCH rather talk about Dan Gosling at this point! As no doubt we all would.

Quite happy to give this a rest now since both sides are simply repeating themselves without convincing the other. But if you want to have a final swing Michael, go for it...

No, it doesn’t help at all, Neil. We have just had the Annual Accounts published, and they feature a zero net balance. We just break even. Some years we make a small loss... other years we make a small profit. Overall, we break even.

So, on your business valuation basis, the club is currently worth nothing. Not £50M. Did I got that right?

Probably we should stop now Michael! Let me just say that the first thing you are confusing is profitability and cashflows. ’Breaking even’ and being cashflow positive are not the same thing - the former is an accounting concept containing all sorts of accruals, depreciation charges etc., and the second is what it says it is. The amount of cash in minus the amount of cash out.

Secondly, as Simon points out in his analysis on the other thread, the reason we are usually cashflow neutral or negative is because, after ordinary business activities, we choose to spend whatever cash we have left usually on players.

The point is still of course that any potential purchaser is going to look at our cashflows to determine what they will pay for the club. They will consider both how much cash they will need to ’replenish’ our stock of players, and they will also consider how much cash they might generate by selling some of them. And how much cash the business generates through its day to day activities (attendances, Sky money, merchandising etc.).

It is utterly extraordinary that you think they won’t look at these things, and I can’t actually believe that you believe this. Although you keep saying it. What do you think people do Michael when they perform ’financial due diligence’? Why do people draw up and analyse business plans? Why don’t they just look at the current balance sheet and pay the difference between assets and liabilities? (They don’t.)

I think your fundamental confusion seems to be that you imagine that there is some mystical absolute thing called ’the value of the club’. And that this value can somehow be simply read off the company accounts (well, the balance sheet only of course). Why do you think then that different people offer different amounts for businesses? Why don’t they all just agree?

Our conversation has always been a real one, about the ’value’ of the club in terms of what someone will ACTUALLY pay Kenwright and others for it. (The charge against Kenwright from you remember is that he will knowingly financially damage the club by going to Kirkby whilst making out like a bandit himself. That the business future of the club and what Kenwright will get paid for it are completely separate issues.)

Michael, forget all your old fashioned accounting hoopla for a minute - just think practically! Imagine that you have a couple of hundred million and might buy Everton....

Would you pay Kenwright more for EFC + Kirkby than EFC - KIrkby? If yes, that must be because you think overall you are acquiring a better business with a better future. Why else would you pay more? You are not going to buy a shop from me with a big return to me if you think its future prospects are lousy and you can’t sell it as a separate asset. Not even if I told you that you are getting it at less than I originally paid for it.

By the way, why DO you think Michael that buyers will pay much more for Liverpool than Everton? I think it is because Liverpool is a stronger business with a better financial future. You?

Neil, why do you keep twisting the arguement?

You say I believe Kirkby will be a financial failure. I have never said that. "The charge against Kenwright from you remember is that he will knowingly financially damage the club." I have never said that and that is definitely not the issue here. It has no relevance to what we are discussing ? which is the difference in sale valuation with or without Kirkby. What I have said is that Kirkby could be a success or it could be a failure ? no-one really knows. My point has always been how and why Kirkby is expected to change the valuation of the club, especially in light of the mysterious £52M asset injection that was discussed at the Public Inquiry.

You claim that it?s not about assets, you ignore the issue of shareholder equity, which is surely all about asset value, and instead you blather on about cashflow. I?ve asked you to consider the actual transactions involved for the owners ? buyers and sellers who are dealing in shareholder equity. That is what they are purchasing, what they are deriving ultimate benefit from, what they are selling on at the end of the day, years down the road, as long as the business remains viable.

You claimed that illiquid assests cannot affect business valuation because they can?t be sold, yet if the asset is sold as part of the business (Goodison Park being a good example) then only an idiot would claim that asset value plays no part in the overall valuation of the business.

You continue to claim that cashflow rules, yet in the real world of shareholder equity, cashflow is clearly a side issue to this remarkably simple transaction:

1) I?m Bill Kenwright; in 2000 I buy 8,754 shares in Everton FC Co Ltd for £7½M (£857 a share), nominally valuing the club at £30M, based on 35,000 shares outstanding.

2) I hang on to these shares for the next 9 years. I get no dividend. My ownership of the shares allow me to become Chairman of the Board of Directors but I do not take a salary; I derive no income from the club (other than minor reimbursable expenses). I observe the cashflow of the club to go up and down, as it does, without it directly affecting my investment, other than to the extent that the ship stays afloat and the perceived value of the club increases over time, following timidly in the wake of the raging success that is the Premier League, and Everton?s progressively improved position therein.

3A) In 2009, with Destination Kirkby approved, I sell my shares for £70M making a very tidy benefit on the promise of what the Kirkby Tescodome might bring to Everton in the future (not forgetting the small matter of a £52M assest injection that plays a significant part on substantially boosting the overall valuation of the club from £100M without Kirkby to £200M with Kirkby).

3B) In 2009, I reluctantly sell my shares at £35M to a maga-rich sugar daddy who sees a future for Everton within the City of Liverpool, since the Public Inquiry rejected Destination Kirkby and sent us back to square one... halving the potential value of my shares at a stroke.

As you have agreed, Bill makes out pretty darn well in both scenarios... If Kirkby is such a good idea for Everton Football Club (as you claim) then it sure as hell is a bloody fantastic payday for Bill Kenwright and his chums... provided they can pull it off.

Which neatly explains (a) why they have no interest whatsoever in any other options (especially redeveloping Goodison... what a joke that is!), and (b) why there is no Plan B.

So, Neil, Why do you go on denying these scenarios? The logic is remarkably simple. It does not rely (as you have falsely claimed) on Kirby bankrupting the club. Nor does it rely on an idiot buying the club (but see below). Is it because you as an Evertonian cannot contemplate the sheer magnitude of the profit Bill Kenwright (and his chums) stand to make?

[I should say "stood to make"; all this is now probably moot. I don?t believe either will happen now as I don?t think they will find a buyer for the club at that magnitude in the current financial climate... the Ashley scenario I believe you alluded to... However, even at a half or a quarter of these sums, the return is still good and the potential differential is still huge.]

Do me a favour if you reply and only address what is in this message. Don?t invent stuff anymore, please.

Any chance you can join us on planet earth now, Neil? Outside influences can sometimes greatly alter the value of an asset even if its a pig to begin with just like the barren farm-land that wasn?t worth $100 dollars until a buyer discovered there was the biggest diamond mine ever found right underneath it. In this case Everton are purly a pawn in a game to make this redevelopment come off in some shape or form and make someone or some company a fortune and Everton?s past, current or future income is irrelevant.