But Bill has said he’s been looking for investment 24/7, does this mean he’s been lying again?

Put your tin hat on Wayne..... Abuse to follow!

Yes Wayne, I would keep Kenwright as well. Behind bars with his lying mouth taped up for the rest of his natural life!!

Wayne I’m guessing you’re a youngish feller (not many over-40’s named Wayne) so I’m not going to jump all over this.

However I must draw your attention to a couple of points.

You say...

"I’d rather keep Kenwright than handing our beloved club someone who will lead to turmoil. Stability on our own means is the key"

Fact: Just because we’ve paid the wages this week, does not make us ’stable’.

Fact: We owe millions and we own nothing.

Fact: We have a chairman/board who have proved (I won’t go into detail... unless you want me to) that they are not up to the job.

Fact: We’ve not yet recovered from the divisions, anger, splits created by DK.

Fact: Chelsea are not a club in Turmoil.

Fact: Neither are City.

Question - What is your understanding of the words ’stability’ and ’turmoil’?

Not sure I entirely agree. The guy who sold City for example made money. The many rumours of Liverpool being taken over will result in a profit for the owners I’m sure.

But, yes, you are right; these are exceptions to the rule. Most clubs are bought as playthings (lucky buggers!).

Wayne, got to wholly disagree, BK couldn’t organise a piss-up in a brewery. How many business opportunities have been missed on his watch?

I’ll, again, raise the Capital of Culture and the disgraceful lack of retail presence during it, it was known about well in advance but he and his employees still failed to seize that glaring chance to earn cash. How many more that we don’t lknow about?

Tony I’Anson I think posted about this revenue stream variance idea months ago, suggesting the club had listened to them but I can’t see anything tangible they have done about it. So, sorry Wayne, I’d rather have a business man or woman who can find their arse with both hands without a map rather than the perennial bullshitter whose business plan is on a downward spiral with bare cupboards and only players left to pay off his rising debts.

Wayne it doesn't help your point when you tell us there are two types of owners... and then you list three.

Investment can be paid back in many ways, not just hard cash. Success, being one. Or even stability or safety against relegation, if you’re say Bolton etc.

I’ve yet to see the rich owners turn their clubs into the turmoil you speak of. Not sayin it can’t happen, it may well do what with the limited number of CL places. But I can’t imagine Randy Lerner srewing Villa over if they do not get CL football.

This notion of the owners getting ’bored’ gets banded about by fans full of resent, yet I have seen no evidence of it. Maybe that Man City dude, and what did he do? Sell to even richer dudes.

The closest we have to a club getting screwed is Liverpool depending on their league placing this year. In essance, the owners in failing to get CL placings will have done a Leeds. Lets not pretend we haven’t all considered the possibility (evil laughes at the ready).

As for Everton, what we are scared of, is if we do find an investor who takes over, that we end up like a comercial franchise like many of the bigger teams. They do not resonate the institutional qualities they once had, and Everton are one of the last teams to have this. We do not want that taken away. So if a man can come in who can give a good transfer budget each season and yet retain the club’s history (Rany Lerner indeed) then that’s all well and good.

Kenwright for all his good points, has more bad ones, and depending on who he sells to will either cast him as an incompatent fool forever or allow him to be viewed in a more sympathetic light when we look back on his rule.

Wayne

Which one of the three types of owners you mention is Kenwright in?

For everything else I have to say about "Black Bill" read Eugene and Gavin’s posts.

Now, even though I am manager in a FTSE100 company and a qualified accountant, I never have really understood the difference between a Chairman and a CEO.

So let me look at my company. We got a new CEO a year ago and all the decisions on how the business is run are made by him. We have just had an hour-long video shown to all managers around the world and it was the CEO who fronted it. The chairman was not even mentioned. We have a weekly blog from the CEO, nothing from the chairman.

So Gavin, the person you need to be blaming for the lack of action would seem to be the CEO. After all, my company has an annual turnover of over $50billion so we probably are doing it the "normal business way".

So what is the reason for Bill? Well, he made himself chairman because most of the shareholders voted for him. That he owned over 50% himself made it a bit of a foregone conclusion. Perhaps one of the tasks of our chairman was to find the right CEO and maybe that is where Bill can be criticised.

The problem is that you have in essence a $100m business and really that is not major. So perhaps that is his major failing, the CEOs he has appointed and that the CEO has gone on to not appoint the right staff — but then, given this country's labour laws, he cannot just get rid of them because they were brought in under a previous CEO.

How many of us would give the preverbial right arm to work for the club — and on the salaries they pay? (Those currently unemployed, we know you would!) And would you do a better job? And why? What is your track record of excellence?

Obviously Wayne is not an accountant as he starts with "there are two types of owners" and then details three... but he encapsulates what I have felt and said on this site for a number of years.

So if you were in Bill’s situation — and for him it is also a lifelong love affair — would you sell to a Type 2 or 3? So looking 24/7 is not a lie; if the only one you would sell to is a Type 1, it is not surprising he has found none.

Bill’s real problem on the investment issue is losing control. How many of us would take an extra £5,000 mortgage on the house or have one less pint a day for the next 5 years? And if 10,000 of us did it, that is £50m. We could buy out Bill and have 10,000 shareholders. Bet you wouldn’t do it.

Well said, sir! We have a Chairman (and a Manager) in a million. Long may he (they) reign!

Great post, Phil. Couple of minor issues:

Kenwright does not and never has owned over 50% of the Everton shares. Half that at most: it’s more like 25%.

Also, I don’t believe the shareholders ever voted him in as Chairman... (I’m less sure of this) but I believe he either declared himself initially Vice-Chairman (didn’t he bring Sir Philip back for that role?) and then became Chairman some years later.

Any voting would probably have been by the Board of Directors, which admittedly represents the handful of majority shareholders, but only a tiny minority of the total number of persons holding Everton Shares (close to 500).

Regarding your main point, I think there are big differences between the roles of Chairmen and CEO at Everton FC, and those in a more normal business like yours. I think it likely reflects the very odd way in which football is financed and operates (mostly at a loss) yet makes vast millions for the major share holders when they sell on.

It’s a paradox I’ve tried to get Neil Pearse to address with little success, because he always goes back to applying the normal business model to the football club, and I’m more and more convinced that a different model applies. Not quite sure I could really describe it but perhaps that’s the nub of this thread.

Phil seeing as you don't know the difference between a Chairman and a Chief Executive, I will give you my experience of serving on a number of FTSE top 250 boards.

A Chairman is the person who sets the culture and the planning for the future direction of the business by guiding and galvanising the board.

The Chief Executive, by nature of his title, is responsible for ensuring actions are taken in accordance with the wishes of the board, and reports directly to the Chairman.

How you can exonerate Kenwright from the financial and operating performance of EFC is beyond me. Planning and direction have been a total shambles from Day 1 of Kenwright’s regime and there is a constant emanation of lies from him and the club.

I defy you to deny that in any other company Kenwright would have been obliged to resign by now.

What Kenwright and his buddies are asking for EFC is obscene given that they only paid £20 million and have run debts up from £5 million to a reputed figure of over £80 million.

I understand Doody’s penchant with him but I am very surprised at you.

Phil, I also wanted to take up your point on having the wrong staff too.

Every "good" organisation has systems and procedures in place for people to follow. If they are not followed, there is a process of review, appraisal, training and, if necessary, disciplinary action.

NOBODY is stuck with incapable people. You either train them or move them on. EFC’s problem IMO is a leadership problem and not a staff problem.

Phil, Michael — football has very little to do with normal business, in almost every way including how it’s funded, accounted for, and run.

The post of Chairman is most often a form of emeritus post, a figurehead who can add value to a CEO through network and expertise. It is NOT an executive post and, with the exception perhaps of smaller "family" companies, is not usually the preserve of the company owner.

In football, a CEO is almost without exception subservient to a Chairman, who in turn is more often the owner or majortiy shareholder. The term of CEO for a football club is a misnomer. He/she usually has little or no executive power, all of that usually rests with the chairman/board.

I can live with Kenwright. My personal preference is for all senior clubs to ascribe to the German/Spanish model of supporter part-ownership. I totally totally totally endorse Uefa’s moves to stop clubs like City and Chelsea (and Madrid) destroying the integrity of the sport by benefitting from hundereds of millions in free money from owners. It doesn’t happen in normal business, it does nothing but harm to the sport, and it’s a fucking monstrosity.

Footballers are vastly overpaid tarts. Compared to their counterparts in rugby, most of them are wastes of space and money. I’m also a Harlequins fan, and the sense of inclusion for fans, the attitude to kids and families and the breadth of community activity puts football clubs to shame. So too does the dedication and intelligence of the players, who receive a fraction of a below-average EPL player gets.

If the day ever arrives when football is run like a business, and indeed like a sport, then players will be the first to suffer. That day can’t come soon enough. Almost all the extra money from Sky, gates and merchandising goes to the players. According to Henry Winter in the Torygraph, John Utaka is on £80k a week at Portsmouth. £4m a year basic for a mediocre player at a mediocre club. Go figure that fucking fantasy out!

We’re all having the wrong argument. Football doesn’t need billionaires (and thanks to Platini, they will soon be efectively barred). It needs common fucking sense, good financial management and a slightly more level playing field. The essence of sport is competition, not money.

Alan, I agree with you totally on the subject of finance in football and vastly overpaid prima donnas.

However, I still believe the role of Chairmen in football is comparable to industry but even more direct in that it is usually the chairman that dictates plans and policies for the club and the board have to go along with it because the chairman is usually the major shareholder who says what goes.

Michael - I tried to say as short as possible - one share=one vote so that is why the "shareholders" voted in Kenwright

Alan - I agree, hence my let’s 10,000 of us get £5,000 each and own it ourselves.

Jay - the recent "new strategy" in our FTSE100 company does seem to have come very much from the CEO as described by Alan, not the model you portray.

Alan/Jay - what I think the 3 of us are united on is that Everton and probably most other football clubs would not last more than a few years in the "real world" as their governance and managerial systems have just not kept pace with modern business methods. What probably frustrates most is that the expertise is there in the fan base (and how many with that expertise are 50+ semi-retired and would give it for free - yes not of the real world I know!) to make us the best run club in Britain.

How can a guy based 200 miles from his business, with many other interests really keep in touch with what is going on and put it right? All of which probably proves Michael right — football clubs and normal businesses are not the same. Oh that they were...

Like everyone else, I hope that the Platini measures will bring much needed sanity to football.

One of the more alarming aspects of the Prem is that turnover is increasing and so is the collective debt. If this was a normal business, lowering operating costs would be the order of the day, and although I don’t have a problem with footballers being vastly overpaid tarts, the stark truth of the matter is that football cannot any long afford the ever bulging wage bill.

But maybe the tide is turning without Platini; we are a week into the transfer window and the Sky 4 haven’t bought a player, and for all of SAF’s "no value for money" or Ancellotti’s "run naked in the snow" or Wenger’s "we’ll have a look at the fitness of Bentner before we buy", I have never seen the Sky 4 squads looking so threadbare.

Who knows, maybe we need a few clubs to fail to bring it all to a head; my wish if that ever happened would be to ban agents, surely the symbol of everything that is wrong with the modern game.

Doddy: it won’t surprise a few people on here to learn that I’m with you on this one.

Kenwright’s not perfect, but he’s far from imperfect and a much more preferable alternative to a great many of his counterparts...

Alan Kirwin: some great common sense spoken there too.

Portsmouth anybody?

Dave Wilson, everybody knows there are three types of people.

Those that can count and those that can’t.

So players’ wages are the only place where things could (arguably should... MUST!) give to bring the game back on a more even keel. Yet, like carbon emissions (oh God, what have I just done?), they just keep on rising despite all the blather.

A salary cap has been mooted before, and arguably that is what was/is required to maintain sanity in US Throwball (I believe it is around $40-50M per team?), where I understand it has been very succesful in curtailing the madness and bringing things back on a more even keel. The likelihood of this being introduced in football is miniscule unless it is somehow done as a blanket across all major leagues...

Which brings us nicely back to the outstanding success that was Copenhagen... NOT!

’Mooted’ not ’muted’, I think Michael - although I’m sure the players would like to mute the argument. Makes for a quieter life for them......

Michael, the financial meltdown has focussed attention on a lack of regulation in the banking sector. It is unclear if that will lead to a better way of doing things. No one can deny that warning signs have been heeded and change is underway.

Copenhagen has forced the nations of the world to concentrate on global warming. Again the alarm bells have rung out loud and clear but at least for the time being it does not seem if things will change for the better.

Football has had its own dire warnings... yet, going by how little mention they have had on fanzines or in the media, those warnings have barely entered public consciousness.

Clubs that sold out to glory/profit seeking international entrepreneurs have woken to enormous debt. That debt, coupled with a huge influx of foreign players, is slowly but surely alienating the game from its roots.

Home based contacts ensure that here in far off Australia I can hear the growing whispers of discontent. As with the financial problem and the impending peril of climate change, it will need a catastrophe before action is taken.

Dick, not sure what the response has been in Australia to the banking created global meltdown but here in England, other than a little lipservice, nothing credible has actually happened.

Unlike America which had the cojones to let a few big names go to the wall, this government used taxpayers money to bail out several outrageous banking calamities which should have resulted in jail sentences and the so-called taming of bonuses has been the most lacklustre of efforts with retorts of "these people will just work in other countries". I would happily see these people jailed then sent to whatever country they want to go to after they are released, let some other mugs pay for them.

Back to the subject, didn’t rugby league introduce stringent capping measures years ago after Wigan won everything year after year and that’s become a much more interesting and equal playing field ever since.

Kenwright bought a 30-oddish percent stake in Everton for about £8-oddish million..

Q. How much will he get in return?

A. Football is not something that is profitable...

Yeah right.

Ciaran, as he was reputed to have only £1 million to his name after remortgaging his London home I also wonder where the other £7M came from (or went from, as the case may be).

Michael, great idea the salary cap — as in American Football — but the structure of the game is so totally different.

1. No relegation or promotion
2. Recruiting by selecting 7 players per year from all those at University teams
3. 32 clubs for the whole of the US

Seems like the basis of a European Super League so please no! Because there are only 32 teams. No minor leagues (as in Baseball), no Sunday Morning before going to the pub. Bring the model to Europe and all Everton’s troubles are over — we would not exist.

Jay,

I think we all know the allegations that Anita Gregg and subsequent other parties had covered this finance...

So this difference in roles then... can ayone explain whether it’s a Chairman or a CEO (or both ?) who is allowed to lie to shareholders at AGMs/EGMs?

Thanks in advance :)

Gavin R, a dozen years ago an Australian government had the foresight and guts to ignore its many critics and tackle the banking sector. Stringent regulations and the threat of severe penalties was enough to win the day.

Subsequent governments kept up this tough line resulting in many years of budget surpluses. Those surpluses have created thousands of nationwide projects and saved Australia from going into recession. In fact, it was the only OECD country to maintain small yet positive growth.

The lessons to be learnt from the Australian experience applies to football as it does to politics. Potential problems must be identified and, if necessary, unpopular action taken to rectify such matters. As I see it, football's future problem is the unrestricted influx of foreign players and the influence of foreigners at all levels of the game.

There already are some muffled rumblings about those things and I sense they are becoming more widespread. It will probably take another another world cup humiliation to force a demand for a roots and all change.

Gavin, the RL salary cap came into effect during Wigan's flukey run but they simply ignored it and paid the annual fine using their winnings.

Which is probably what Citeh and Chelski will do if it ever happens.

Re Copenhagen, I see Suggs attended — a case of Madness gone politically correct??

Gavin,

Glad you remembered my points. I wrote the "Club Everton" article the day after the FA Cup final. OK, the club only have the name and a type of membership on a small tent in the car park scale, but this idea could be rolled out as part of any re-development (or new stadium).

On the issue of listening to the fans, I also wrote an article called "New Money for Everton" ages ago. Ivor Bona suggested "Hi-Viz jackets and hard hats" with Everton branding on them and gee whiz, when I was in Everton Two at the Derby weekend — there they were!! (I couldn’t find them on the website though.)

Overall, I think the football business model of high wages, funded by Sky, will go belly-up once we have broadcast proper quality internet access to our homes en-masse. People will desert them in favour of the free channels they can get ahold of and they will end up like Setanta. Those Clubs dependent on this business model and big stadia to fill will be in big trouble with big unservieable debts.

Are Rangers up here in Scotland already on a shaky nail with Walter and his team even working for them without a contract? The signs are there that the deck of cards will come tumbling down, with some big-name casualties.

Tony, I mentioned on another thread about web based online realtime broadcasting is the way things appear to be going and I wouldn’t be surprised if the service providers offer substantial freebies to people signing up to these services such as sporting events. They have to realise that if you look carefully enough there are plenty of ways to watch the game now completely free. As money gets tighter and folk get more and more disgruntled with the "bang for buck" on offer, I think that’s where an exodus of fans will end up.

Dick, I have many friends in Australia and New Zealand and have for years badgered my Mrs into emigrating, even more so after watching this current recession. Each of them tell me things are tight but they can see light at the end of the tunnel and not one of them has lost their jobs, my hat raised to proactive leadership this country hasn’t had for decades.

Gavin, I was a very reluctant emigree, my wife’s incessant badgering pushed me into it. After all these years, the badgering continues but we still cling happily together, to each other. We survived some difficult periods but, all-in-all, I reckon Australia has been good for us.

What I miss most of all is the real matchday experience. Nothing can replace the emotion and excitement of it. Despite the distance, my overall attachment to the game and Everton in particular is much increased. That is in part due to modern communications, internet etc plus the fact that this place is loaded with football fans from all over the UK and continent.

Should you be thinking about emigrating, my best advice would be to do it when you are under thirty and the kids, if any, are not in their teens.

Thanks for the advice, Dick. I’m 40 and my Mrs is 5 years younger than me but our two sons are 4½ and 1½ so they are still young enough to move without any impact on education. We pass the qualification test criteria and both have skills which would transfer too.

Gavin, my age range was just a broad guess.We are retired now and manage on an English and Australian pension. (I was 30 when I came and qualified for a part UK pension and upgraded it by paying cash for a an extra 10 years)
Should you wish for more info I give Michael permission to pass on to you my email address