ToffeeWeb - Season 2007-08

The Mail Bag

Robert Earl and Gosling

I have just read on the Plymouth Herald newspaper website that the Dan Gosling transfer will be completed now that Robert Earl has given his approval! I appreciate that he is the second-largest shareholder but surely he should be leaving football matters to Moyes and Kenright?

If true, it also highlights (again) how poor our communications department is if we are finding out this information in a local Plymouth rag!
James Armstrong, Lancaster Posted 11/01/2008 at 22:23:54

back Return to the Mail Bag

Comments

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

Lyndon Lloyd

It's no secret that it was Robert Earl under-writing the £25m mortgage taken out in the summer that enabled us to sign Yakubu and almost land Manuel Fernandes on a permanent basis. Given that his family has put so much money on the line, it's not all that surprising that he wants to ratify how it's being spent.

Moyes took care of the footballing side by identifying the player and persuading him to join but he doesn't hold the purse strings. Someone else has to give the green light for cash to go out the door.

As for the Communications department, I'm not sure they're duty bound to share the minutiae of how every transfer is funded, no matter how much we'd like to know...

Dan McKie
1 Posted 11/01/2008 at 23:28:25

I'm sure he will take some interest in who we are signing cos it is his cash and lets face it we should be grateful to the fella! As long as he leaves the pointing out players to Moyes we will be fine!

Roy Coyne
2 Posted 11/01/2008 at 23:38:40

That?s fine as long as we dont end up like our friends across the park and have Moyes having to fight for every penny

Mick Simo
3 Posted 11/01/2008 at 23:49:42

I think that is the way things are done these days, it is just the way things are. We have got to accept that the days have gone when the manager run the club, from top to bottom, were tallking about big money and any business have got to have checks and balances, any transfer even Man United board need to sanction a transfer if Ferguson wants a palyer. It is called modern day business, some are run well others not to good but live with it.

Gerard Madden
4 Posted 12/01/2008 at 00:05:00

Good ol’ Robert Earl - I knew he was a good addition to our clubs armoury and it looks like we’ve got further proof - good on him!

Roy Kroft
5 Posted 12/01/2008 at 00:34:20

Why is this any different to Sir John Moores sanctioning payment for a transfer in the 60’s/70’s? Or Sir Phillip Carter in the 80’s? Or Peter Johnson in the 90’s?

I’m sorry I just don’t get it, this is a non - story if ever I read one. People with too much time and fertile imaginations looking for conspiracy theories.

Dick Fearon
6 Posted 12/01/2008 at 00:46:40

Lyndon, to be able to say that I appreciate your explanation. It was a good sensible response to Jame’s query and made no attempt to use the opprtunity to denigrate Moyes. Cheers.

Alex May
7 Posted 12/01/2008 at 00:54:57

Why is it different? Well Earl is the first of those to have the naming rights to a new stadium. The more he spends now, the more he’ll want back and the less the club will have towards the cost of the stadum. The ground gets further away from being ’virtually free’ all the time.

James Crolla
8 Posted 12/01/2008 at 03:19:53

I have spent the last 20 minutes reading all of the comments surrounding the Fernandes transfer and Robert Earl sanctioning the Gosling transfer. I am very excited about this season and have high hopes that we may have success for the first time for as long as I care to remember. HOWEVER - every time I read this site I feel confused and start to doubt the progress we are making?

Fernandes is coming (FANTASTIC NEWS) and I am grateful we are following due dilligance. I think I can understand concerns following the summer, however Moyes would not be quoting Fernandes as an Everton player on the OS if had an doubts.

Robert Earl has every right to sanction transfers when it his money making it possible.

I Personally I believe we are very cautious when making the clubs business public, and quite right so! We are starting to learn how to use the Media instead of the Media making running the club more difficult. If there is money to spend it is essential that it is not obvious to anyone except the club (why do you think Chelsea pays over the odds for every player they sign. Why do you think we are saying that McFadden is part of our long term plans - it reduces possibility of him being sold on the cheap).

Look at how the Stadium debate was conducted by the club - when was the last time a club balloted supporters about such an important decision. I would strongly argue that this represents best practise and should be an example for other clubs to follow in the future.

In summary we are not always perfect (but no club is), but we are making significant progress. We have the 3rd best manager in the league (only behind Ferguson and Wenger), we have an ever improving and younger squad of the players, we are gaining valuable European experience, we have a new stadium around the corner (with significantly reduced cost), we seem to have some financial backing, we are playing much better football (scoring goals) and we have a great chance of success this season.

Arthur Jones
9 Posted 12/01/2008 at 07:38:17

Great post James, I agree wholeheartedly with you. I think reading between the lines now, Robert Earl is takihg his considerable business experience and his enthusiasm about Everton and making us a much more financially aware club, but without the massive debts and loans that have been incurred by Liverpool, Man Utd, and the barcodes. The proof of course will be at the end of the season when the money has to be found to buy Manny and Pienaar and any other additions DM thinks we?l need to strengthen the squad. Watching his interview on Everton TV, Robert Earl has said he wants us to be competing for a top 4 place and he will help provide the finance for such. As I said, the end of the season will be the proof of his real intentions.

David Shankland
10 Posted 12/01/2008 at 08:03:48

Dan Gosling signed week before last. My ol man gave him a lift from his digs in Waterloo to Finch Farm this week

Alan Ryder
11 Posted 12/01/2008 at 08:44:48

Alex M

We can’t have our cake and eat it - there has to be some trade off if we need funds now....but you are right, it is different.

Robert Carney
12 Posted 12/01/2008 at 09:01:16

I understood the £25M was underwritten against future gate and televisionn rights. Not Earl's money. The loan came from Barclays.

Keep on sucking Madden.

Chris Jones (Wakefield)
13 Posted 12/01/2008 at 10:35:44

I think the timing is no coincidence. At a time money-bags Toon are looking for a new boss (Redknap has turned them down) it is important we remind ourselves we are building for the future and have the money to lay-out on a decent prospect like Gosling. And so hopefully there’s no question of Davey wanting to leave it all behind?

Andy Macfarlane
14 Posted 12/01/2008 at 11:49:21

Paul, money can come into the Club from several areas- 1. Income streams. That?s down to gate receipts and other business activities. That would normally just about cover the overheads, if we are paying decent salaries for good young players. 2. Short term sale of assets to raise capital to "massage" during tricky periods of transition - this has been a strategy employes by Keith Wyness to get us through the period from when Trevor Birch advised we were "dead in the water"to our now curently healthier position. 3. Directors investing their own cash - i.e. to purchase shares (as when BK bought out Johnson) or by means of "directors loans to the Club" If the money is borrowed this is personal money, for which the Directors are personally responsible to the Bank or other institution they borrowed it from. (Unless they are Russian Mafia, who don?t need to borrow the money from anyone!) 4. The Club?s bank can increase the overdraft, not just to cover the cash shortfall "blips" during a season / closed season, but to accept a long term core overdraft requirement. Given the healthier state of our finances and Business Plan, they have already done this - the "gearing" is perfectly acceptable and not out of the ordinary for any business. 5. If the Clubs Busines Plan makes out a case for some extraordinary capital expenditure, the Bank CAN sanction this, but they often want Directors "personal guarantees" for the extra. SO, the debt is not just the Club?s It is the personal debt of the Guaranteeing Director as well. In effect, they are personally borrowing the money. That is the Robert Earle situation. He and the Bank are convinced that making a prudent further capital investment now in better quality players will provide Moyes with the final pieces of the jigsaw carefull assembled over the previous 5 years.

Sorry to go on a bit, M8, but I cannot understand all of the negative bitching against the Board on this site, except to assume, with no intended disrespect, that some contributors such as yourself are not aware of these standard business Banking practices. If you were, surely you would not be making such outrageous criticisms. Oh, and I am not saying that the Club, or the Board, get everything 100% right 100% of the time, before I am accused of "sucking"

Gavin Ramejkis
15 Posted 12/01/2008 at 12:43:05

It has always been the case and always will be that the manager is just responsible for identifying targets, the directors need to sanction and find the money. Pretty much a non-story in my eyes. None of this is conspiracy stuff it?s standard football club practice and no matter how you look at it, the money came from a loan which the club will have to service through future income.

Robert Carney
16 Posted 12/01/2008 at 13:06:31

Our Board put out the suggestion that Robert Earl guaranteed the repayment of loans for the £25 million made available in the close season. This turned out to be another falsehood. Barclays loaned the money with a guarantee of further TV rights / and gate reciepts monies. The full facts were made available on this site earlier in the season.

Andy, I would not aim derogatory comments on anyone who informs this site of genuine facts. The person I aimed the "sucking" at, as regular contributors know, is just an apologist for the Board whatever they do. He never conrtibutes any invidual / independent views.

Mick Simo
17 Posted 12/01/2008 at 13:32:02

Robert have you seen this for a fact, re: Barclays Bank loan. I am not one who looks too much into these things, but I am interested in what type of Board you wish for? A Russian billionaire, an Americian conman, or a Thai crook. You say this was on this site, was it the books or second hand gossip? I go the match every week and some of the shite you hear from the fans "in the know" is a joke.

Robert Carney
18 Posted 12/01/2008 at 20:50:10

Mick, I have just returned home, a great result, pity about our neighbours grabbing a draw. I also have received a profit on my bets of £581 pounds with a layout of just £17.

All bets were based around Lescott and Arteta with 1-0 and 2-0..Lescott was also backed indvidual @ 28/1 for first goal... scorecast are great value.

If our editorial team can get to the archives before I can, we will all be satisfied.

I am a bit tiddly.

Uh!? Whaddaya want me to do in the Archives??? ? The Editor

Robert Carney
19 Posted 12/01/2008 at 21:25:38

Maybe dig out the response from the contributor who exposed the loan to Everton. If I recall, Tom Hughes may have been the person. Apologies if it was not. I do not know how good your search engine is on these enquiries. It was definitely earlier in the season when debate about our future was at its highest.

A contributor from the City of London also comes to mind.

Robert Carney
20 Posted 12/01/2008 at 22:00:36

To try and put the record straight.

All I want is honesty. I maybe naive, but not all the time. I do not want an American fly-by-night who realises that the global market will not accept rounders or a sad substitute for any code of rugby.

I have also said on many occasions sugar daddies do not work, nevermind crooks, wherever they are from. Investors are welcome from any other source who do not expect a quick buck. More important is transparency in a modern economy. We do not receive any of the above.
I would also love to see genuine involvement of fans on any Board, not the offers BK and Fat Arse have made to shut people up.

Paul Gladwell
21 Posted 13/01/2008 at 12:51:26

Andy mate, I am very much aware of these standard business practices of surety etc being a Managing Director of my own thriving company on Merseyside. In some ways I think putting negative stuff out is wrong considering how well we are growing; however, I just don't trust these people whatsoever.

They have lied constantly to us for years and years; the new ground capacity the latest one and each night I pick my wife up at Woodside I glare over at the fabulous blue lit-up stadium that reminds me of another lie (ring-fenced) and just think what a major balls up and how big that move could of made us and you know what LCC gave us that oppurtunity. I know our club is thriving but you will never get me to trust these people who are running the club.