If reports from City are true, the manager is to be sacked after one season, and this morning it was announced that the whole team has been transfer listed. Liverpool are in an even worse state. Not only won't the owners even speak to each other, they have transfered over £300M pounds of debt to the club. They effectively own the entire club, but have put no money in of their own. Even last years signings (Babel & Torres) have not been paid for - there is a £30M outstanding debt to the club. If they ever get their stadium built, they will owe around £800M, from a start of around £40M when the Yanks arrived.
I have always argued that Chelsea are in the most vulnerable financial position in the league. Sure they can buy any player in the world, but they don't have a big enough fanbase to support their spending. They are running at a massive loss, and if Roman decided to go home, they would do a Leeds, only 10 times more spectatularly. They have players on contracts of £140,000 a week that they would not be able to honour without the Russian.
I would argue that we do not want a foreign investor asset-stripping our club. Our club is probably worth £100M, but if somebody bought us out that money would go to the shareholders, not the club. Any new owner would immediately transfer that debt to our club ? Liverpool & Man Utd are prime examples of this ? and the fans would make loan repayments over £1million per month so somebody could own our club.
As much as BK takes stick, let's not forget he has backed Moyes to over £20M in each of the last two seasons. If Moyes gets £20M - £25M again, that could buy Ashvarnin, Joaquin, a Manny loan deal, and two from the championship ? Ramsey & Howard? I think most blues would be very happy that.
Sometimes its better the devil you know.
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 16/05/2008 at 17:17:21
2 Posted 16/05/2008 at 17:29:01
3 Posted 16/05/2008 at 17:22:29
But what I do find frustrating is BK not structuring the business to put our money in - £1000 from 10,000 Evertonians = £10m - but the BK share of the club is now lower so he is losing control. But with <10,000 shareholders in a PRIVATE Limited Company, then takeovers and building up stakes will be almost impossible (a la Glaziers at the PUBLIC Limited Company that was MUFC).
If it is good enough for Barca, it is good enough for us.
And for the more affluent supporters (e.g. Claire Sweeney; Liz McLarnon; John Parrot; Sir Terry Leahy et al.) - they can have more than one share!
4 Posted 16/05/2008 at 17:27:47
5 Posted 16/05/2008 at 17:35:51
6 Posted 16/05/2008 at 18:18:54
7 Posted 16/05/2008 at 18:23:47
8 Posted 16/05/2008 at 18:31:33
9 Posted 16/05/2008 at 18:34:17
I suspect Man City jumped on the bandwagon with Shinawatra and are now paying for it, Man Utd didn’t have much choice with the Glaziers as they are a PLC and couldn’t stop the bid. Chelsea were just desperate and about to go bankrupt and had no choice but I guess their fall could come soon.
The right owner first and foremost needs to be in it for the football and not making money and cares about the club. Secondly, it would be helpful if they had money to throw into the club. For all the criticism Bill Kenwright gets, he cares deeply about our club and is a true fan, that is the most important thing. He has done a good job so far as we were a relegation battling team when he took over and provided Moyes with money when he has needed it, and it was BK who appointed Moyes in the first place. OK, he doesn’t have bundles of money to throw into the club, perhaps when we need it the most, but at least we’re not saddled with huge debts (Man Utd, Liverpool) or have owners who want to chop and change all the time (Newcastle, Man City). I for one am glad he is in charge as he is an Evertonian, at least until someone better comes along.
10 Posted 16/05/2008 at 19:26:15
11 Posted 16/05/2008 at 19:27:21
12 Posted 16/05/2008 at 19:45:16
Most Rich people whatever their nationality are successful in their own right and are winners by nature something Black Bill patently isnt.
As far as Bill doing good for the club asky yourselves what has he put in = Nothing + very little time versus what he has taken out = Asset stripped the club to pay for continuous operational losses and I believe the purchase of Johnson's shares for 20 million.
Now considering he only put £1 million up and now his consortium owns 66% of EFC valued at £100 million I would say he?s done rather better than most without borrowing against his shareholding and without diluting his shareholding to encourage investment. If that's in the best interests of EFC I?ll enlist in a mental home.
13 Posted 16/05/2008 at 19:54:29
14 Posted 16/05/2008 at 20:08:41
"... considering he only put £1 million up and now his consortium owns 66% of EFC... "
I have it on good authority (Neil Wolstenhlome) that you are wrong on this. So please give it a rest. Or produce some proof.
15 Posted 16/05/2008 at 20:21:21
We all put our own interpretation on events and circumstances and what we read so it is only my opinion and therefore I will not repeat it ad nauseum.
I thought it might be useful however to quote this extract from a Business Analyst who looked at EFC?s accounts at the time:
"Similarly, the overall debt of £29M does not take into consideration the transfers of Messrs Jeffers, Ball and Radzinski (which occurred after May 31, 2001). These three transactions should bring the overall current debt figure down to nearer £20M ? barring any "devil in the detail" of the bargains entered into.Make of that what you will but all that is certain is NOTHING is certain.
And there is one overall convenient and perpetual myth that should be smashed: this is peddled lately by no less a figure than a former glorious centre forward now on the company?s payroll. It is that any financial fault lies with the previous administration. These figures, after two years of Kenwright?s TBH in control, are clearly the direct responsibility of the present regime.
One important point is that the debt (one year on) has increased from ~£15M to £29M during their time. How can this have any bearing on the previous regime? Particularly when the present regime would have had every opportunity to undertake the due diligence with which they appear to approach other matters with such regularity? Or is it a telling reminder of the spending spree that preceded the failed media deal?"
16 Posted 16/05/2008 at 20:55:44
I guess my take on those numbers is a net increase from £15M to £20M or am I reading it wrong?
You?re right to an extent though: trying to figure out where the money comes from/goes to ? you need a degree in Forensic Accounting! And then, as you say, there?s all that "creative accounting" going on as well....
The increase in debt, according to the EFC books, and what it apparently correlates with, might be something worth tracking over the years... Could make an interesting anorak job for those lazy sumer nights when there?s no footy! How sad is that!!!
17 Posted 16/05/2008 at 21:34:14
The majority of money these days comes from TV, sponsorship and gates, so why would we want to own our own pie shops etc? We still get profits from outsourcing these services, we just don't have to buy all the equipment that goes with it, plus if there is losses, we dont incur them.
Who owns Finch Farm? I am in the dark here, but either way it don't matter as we get to use it and nobody else does.
The point is, as long as we own the players, get the money from tv and the attendance money, who cares what else we own. "Assest stripping" is panic talk, makes us worry about not having a pot to piss in. Some assets can actually cost us money, I heard rumors that the shops and food outlets were costing us money as they were badly run etc.
I am happy to keep Blue Bill, he is a Toffee, he got us to hire Davey and he gives him money to buy players every year. That is a lot more than most of the other Prem clubs get. West Ham are broke now due to Icelandic interest rates!!!!! Shinawatra may be put to death in his own country!!!!!!!
Either way, looking forward to next season, couple of new players, couple of free transfers, couple of loan deals should be ace. Zoltan Gera is a decent free to pick up also.
18 Posted 16/05/2008 at 22:01:51
You can put the anorak on I?m giving it a break for the summer.
But there again...............
19 Posted 16/05/2008 at 23:42:02
One major bank I worked for had a chairman pay himself a massive bonus for saving the bank a fortune by closing hundreds of branches; looked good on paper and he got his fat cheque but the next year as customers left in droves they were forced to reopen branches at great cost... the fat cheque was never returned. If any department is being ran at a loss then it should be evaluated and changed to become profitable before being cut loose.
The galling example of outsourcing merchandising at Everton is a disgrace; JJB clearly don?t give a toss and their shops' offerings are a shambles, the time the deal was signed the owner was a competitor (owner of Wigan ? I know he isn?t the owner of JJB now), a city centre flagship store closed, and why?
Surely marketing your own products isn?t that hard given KW is allegedly a highly sought-after businessman with vast experience (I choke typing that). The point is, if you can make a profit by doing business right in the first place then why give that profit away for a short-term gain for one member of staff?
20 Posted 17/05/2008 at 01:06:02
’Asset stripping’ in this context is simply your emotive and hysterical way of describing something which is standard business practice and utterly innocuous. It simply means that we substitute the ownership for something we have today for a pile of cash now and a stream of ongoing payments to a third party owner (e.g. we sell a field a pay rent instead). Whether this is a good thing depends totally on the financial terms of the deal, and is neither good nor bad in itself.
In a second form of so-called ’asset stripping’ (even more egregiously misnamed) we transfer the running of something (e.g. catering or merchandising) from directly ourselves to a third party, and take an income stream from them into the future. Again, whether or not this is a good thing depends totally on the financial terms involved. This is no weird and shady business practice, but actually completely the norm in modern businesses.
Generally the practices you are so emotively condemning make perfect sense for a business in Everton’s position. It makes no particular sense for us to own physical real estate assets, since we are not a property developer. Given our need for money now to invest in players on the pitch, there is every reason indeed for us to capitalise such physical assets. And it absolutely makes no sense for us to operate bars and shops ourselves, since we are a football club. It is extraordinarily unlikely that we would be better at running these businesses than people who do it full-time for a living.
Finally your linkage of these so-called ’asset stripping’ practices with KW’s bonus is utterly non-existent. The money from these practices goes into Everton Football Club. It goes just as much into paying Tim Cahill’s wages, the money to buy Manuel Fernandes, or, for that matter, the payment of the guy who cuts the grass at GP, as it has anything to do with what KW gets paid. It’s simply money for the club.
You may think that KW’s bonus is too big. That is a completely separate issue. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with so-called ’asset stripping’ practices which actually make perfect business sense. Without such practices we would not have some of the current players in our squad. As I have said before, you are perfectly entitled to your view that you would rather own playing fields and buildings than Yakubu. I don’t personally agree with you, and don’t see why any other Everton supporters should either.
21 Posted 17/05/2008 at 07:05:22
Finch Farm was aquired for £2.1M in 2006 by EFC. The land was sold and then developed to EFC’s specification by ROM Capital. On completion, Finch Farm was valued by ROM Capital at £17M. At the back end of last year Everton Football Club signed a 50 year tenancy agreement with ROM Capital (an arm of the aAim Group) for Finch Farm. Come to your own conclusion on whether you think the lease payments are based on that £17M figure.
The aAim Group is a property investment company backed by several ’celebrity’ investors including Premier League footballers (including present and ex-Manchester United players), Sir Alex Ferguson and Sir Phillip Green’s best mate Simon Cowell to name but a few.
The man on the far right is Robert Whitton, co-owner of ROM Capital and aAIM Chief Executive.
As for the proposed Kirkby stadium and ownership issues. I give you two quotes from 2006;
The first is from Keith Wyness, from the Daily Post (dated Feb 2006);
"Developers come to us all the time. I am listening to everyone, but the key thing is realistic delivery.
If you make the decision, you are stuck with it for 50 or 60 years." And he hinted the club may prefer not to own a new ground: "Leaseback is one possible formula. Another is forming a stadium company to build it and we pay a management fee and would never own it, just lease it."
The second is from Sheena Ramsey, Knowsley CEO, taken from the Report of the Chief Executive and Executive Directors - Development Proposal For Kirkby Town Centre, (dated June 2006);
"The overall cost of the development proposal has been estimated by Tesco plc as approximately £250 million, and it is expected that the Council’s main financial contribution to the proposal would be through the investment of the value of the land (circa £50m) into the scheme. Officers intend to engage consultants to give advice on the potential options available to the Council in respect of such an investment...........The potential options might include the Council taking a share in any management company operating the stadium or a share of income generated by the stadium operation."
Is Keith Wyness the CEO of a stadium management company (SRSL) that was was capitalised in October 2007 with £20M? Maybe you should do some research on that?
Finally, and back on the topic of the article. Could one of Everton FC’s new owners be carrying out his duties via Video conferencing from his Gulag.
"Everton is attracting interest as a takeover target by international investors.
Could this be the recent, subdued rumours concerning Russian interest?" Greg O’Keefe;
The plot thickens comrades.
22 Posted 17/05/2008 at 08:20:17
23 Posted 17/05/2008 at 08:39:58
I mentioned KW?s stadium development company which was opened and frozen some time ago and strangely resurrected when he got into his personal deal of the century. It must be like Christmas for him to work for someone as gullible as BK. Imagine you get offered a job by someone who gives you a free hand you then ask them if you can run your own company at the same time and during the hours he is supposed to be paying you to work for him and he says yes. He must be wondering how many times and people it?s possible to get paid for to do one job. Is it any wonder this self centred, self interested cretin is driving Destination Cowshed as he is expecting one massive bonus from EFC, another from himself as the new landlord of the shed and however much he will get from KBC and Tesco as "facilitator" on his personal fleece of the century. Amazed any Evertonian cant see past his fat smug face and lies.
24 Posted 17/05/2008 at 09:20:26
I would want a foriegn owner with mega bucks to spend but only if that person is better than what we have got. So that may be a Randy Learner but not a Tom Hicks. Nobody has ever pointed out that Arsenal and Tottenham seem to be doing ok without a foreign investor.
25 Posted 17/05/2008 at 10:26:46
26 Posted 17/05/2008 at 11:47:35
27 Posted 17/05/2008 at 12:51:15
Thank you for once again bringing some common sense to this argument.
Gavin & Jay, whilst you may have some valid points as soon as I start reading personal insults aimed at KW or BK then I switch off. Slandering these two individuals does you no credit at all and lessens the impact of your message I’m afraid, I appreciate that you have strong feelings but please try and keep your emotions in check and stop resorting to childish name calling. If your argument is strong enough to stand on it’s own merits then you don’t need to add personal insults into the message.
28 Posted 17/05/2008 at 14:01:42
Fair enough regards the arguments pro and anti the powers that be but as football is an emotive issue I really haven?t the time or energy after a week in Scotland and nearly 1000 miles in my car to do an "Art" and offer prose, my emotions as those of many others, yours included no doubt are running high I speak or rather type from the hip. If it offends then I apoloise but not for my feelings regarding Messrs Kenwright; who is a serial liar in publication (national and local press) and Wyness who also has a glittering past of illegal business activities as decided by the Australian Court on one occasion.
29 Posted 17/05/2008 at 17:44:37
"One reason why I am a fan of EFC is because they are run with a solid finance model.".
....please tell me you?re joking? I?ve scarcely read a more alienating view of football than that.
Why on earth would that influence anyone to support a club?
30 Posted 17/05/2008 at 18:07:59
We finally agree on something:
"Finally your linkage of these so-called ?asset stripping? practices with KW?s bonus is utterly non-existent. The money from these practices goes into Everton Football Club. It goes just as much into paying Tim Cahill?s wages, the money to buy Manuel Fernandes, or, for that matter, the payment of the guy who cuts the grass at GP, as it has anything to do with what KW gets paid. It?s simply money for the club. "
You are absolutely correct my linkage of The asset stripping that has been going on at EFC with KW?s bonus is non-existent because I have never said it had any connection.
I object to and am suspicious of a man with KW?s reputation for deception receiving about 400000 a year while presiding over operating losses and running his own business in our time while our previous(ignoring Trevor Birch)CE Michael Dunford only got 100000 a year.
And I also am against the sale of Netherfield,remortgage of GP,the company shops and Bellefield etc.
There are totally divided views on whether it is better to manage your own commercial operations or franchise them out but to sell them off means you lose control of their activities and as many posters on here have said you try to get EFC merchandise from JJB.
Now that is what I call a drop in income.
Any decent CE would ensure that the club is marketed properly and its businesses managed properly.
Any poster on here that says we shoould concentrate on managing what goes on on the pitch needs to get in the real world.
Spurs who have a capacity of only 36000 get double the income of EFC mainly through marketing,broadcasting and merchandising.
If we are to significantly increase our revenues we need to manage a total business not just be onlookers to commercial opportunites.
31 Posted 17/05/2008 at 19:21:02
The whole sub prime thing is because it is all beyond the comprehension of the wankers who run the financial services industry.
What I can?t understand is that if Wyness is to get a bonus for achieving tasks set by the Board ? that is a problem?
Don?t we all go to work for as much money as we can be paid?
32 Posted 18/05/2008 at 00:52:42
?All efforts from me and my engaged professional team to meet with and openly discuss the Bestway ?loop site? and promote it as a potential relocation site for Everton FC, having gained the technical support of HOK Sport Architecture and WSP Engineers, totally astounded me.
"Realistically, I couldn?t have done much more and I was just stone-walled for much of the time by EFC?s Directors and to make things worse most all that was said publicly regarding the Bestway site by EFC or it?s representatives was so inaccurate that so often it genuinely beggared belief and surprised me.?
Malcolm Carter, March 2008
33 Posted 18/05/2008 at 06:35:29
Not selling the barn to some obscure "investor" is a big help to keep the traditional football we all fell in love with alive.
34 Posted 18/05/2008 at 11:27:28
35 Posted 18/05/2008 at 13:10:03
However, if it means getting rid of Billy Beef and Luvvie?
Personally, I’d take Pol Pot and Stalin over those two (come to think of it, I think Man City might have actually approached them but....)
The thing to keep in mind re Kirkby, our finances, etc etc etc?
A good liar lies, but makes it sound like the truth.
With Kenwright, I’m always reminded of a Bob Monkhouse quote.
’The most important thing in comedy is sincerity, And once you learn to fake it...."
There was a time, not that long ago, I’d have been defending Kenwright (and DID!)
But, like one of thoses battered women who eventually comes to her senses and and realises her husband, no matter how he pleads, will always beat her, no more.
36 Posted 18/05/2008 at 14:53:25
However, with Shiniwatra, Hicks and Gillett, Ashley.. the list goes on. It’s enough to put anybody off. I’d go with a foreign owner if he is the right owner, and I doubt Kenwright would let in somebody who is not capable or would cause trouble, as he loves Everton as much as every die-hard Evertonian.
And anyway, don’t we already have investment with Robert Earl? He funded Yakubu’s transfer, surely he can fund more transfers this summer.
37 Posted 18/05/2008 at 15:39:36
Robert Earl did not fund Yakubu?s transfer.
It is felt (but not certain) that he secured a loan while the club were waiting for the Sky £25 million which was paid late last year and which would have funded Yak and Fernandes. However we wont know until the accounts are out exactly what did transpire and even then you never know.
38 Posted 18/05/2008 at 15:44:08
It’s an easy thought for many that Robert Earl joined Everton to pump in millions of his own money and help make the club great again. It simply does not work like that (Abramovioch excepted). Paul Gregg and family were the ones who benefitted from Earl’s money. And Everton apparently benefitted from having him on the Board to underwrite even more loans.
39 Posted 18/05/2008 at 19:15:39
40 Posted 22/05/2008 at 13:29:55
Villa have had no problems with Randy Learner and United seem stable now under ther Glazers and Pompey aswell under there Russian investor. If Bill did sell up, let's hope he sells to the right buyer.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment to Column articles, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and MailBag submissions across the site.