There is no doubt now that the EGM embarrassed the directors of Everton FC. It opened them up to answering questions and being accountable in public for their decision-making. This is something the Directors of this club have steadfastly refused to comment on, discuss or justify in the past. They were clearly uncomfortable in doing so. The changing of the Articles of Association to stifle those concerns is an indictment on the people running the club. But frankly I doubt if they will lose any sleep on it.
For the record, Bill, we know who we are now; just supporters who love our club as opposed to those who just want a profit from a business. So let?s draw that line once and for all. We understand that we have witnessed the arrogance of such an allegiance. The Peoples Club? Please, it?s a sick joke now. I no longer feel that the people running this once great club care about its history, its fans... you know, all those things we (the fans) have Pride in.
The use of an EGM was a last resort taken to try to get the club to talk to us, answer those concerns. If the club wanted a fanbase that was 99% behind the management then that?s all they had to do. Talk to us, but instead they choose once again to stifle not just the fanbase this time but their own shareholders. It is the clearest message we have had. They don?t care for our views (if they ever did), they don?t want to know, and they see it as ?washing their dirty laundry in public?. Their arrogance is only topped by their stupidity.
Yes, the club is a business; and No, we are not all shareholders... but we are all stakeholders ? the paying public. But perhaps the 5,000 fans who didn?t turn up for the last game are sending a clear message back to the club. They have had enough. It hardly bodes well for a move does it?
There are many fans who are just concerned about the way the team plays and that we get behind the team and manager. But alas, life isn?t as clean-cut as that. To say the decision to call in Destination Kirkby did not affect the line of credit available to David Moyes is ridiculous. My previous article regarding the influence of Earl & Green showed that clearly. It was obvious that they withheld their commitment to guarantee any line of credit, which in effect handcuffed David Moyes. It?s no surprise that when an early date was set for the enquiry, the line of credit was made available once more.
So, the actions off-field do affect the team and the manager. Moyes must have been beside himself.
We aren?t stupid enough to think Tesco are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, I am sure their shareholders might have something to say about that. No, we are in the deal because it?s a lever they can use as they have done before. It's proven an effective strategy from their perspective with other sites.
We aren?t stupid enough to think that nobody is interested in investing in EFC either; it?s the terms of any such investment that could be so lucrative to the major shareholders. So they are only interested in doing a deal that they want (fair enough but don?t say nobody is interested). A new stadium is a great selling point to any new investor. But is it to the team's benefit? To the fans benefit? To the matchday experience?
I believe Destination Kirkby will fail not because of pressure from any fans but from the basic criteria set down by planning authorities. What the club should be doing is opening up its options because, if (when) that does happen, we will have nothing to fall back on. But it's Kirkby or bust as far as this Board is concerned.
The club have spurned the opportunity to embrace its fans and bring us with them because what was promised is no longer (if ever) real. Depending on your viewpoint, Destination Kirkby is either a saviour or a disaster waiting to happen. Given the track record so far on decision-making and the fabricated expectations of the project, one can only say that ANY management team must have a Plan B. Somehow I am not sure that penny has dropped yet. The sound of doors slamming shut behind the fans echoes across the pitch.
I think, personally, I would rather share a stadium in Stanley Park than continue with the farce that is Kirkby and what it has done to the club. That?s saying something too. Never thought I would ever entertain that thought?
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 11/09/2008 at 06:21:40
The only question for me is just how long it will take for the repeated factually inconsistant, arrogant change the rules, slaps in the face, to bring the Yeses to their senses, before they admit that what best serves the Club, the team and the fans best interests is not what serves the board?s (as opposed to the Club's) self interest.
Management 101, page 1, par. 1, "If you don?t like it, fuck off somewhere else."
2 Posted 11/09/2008 at 07:11:12
The EGM was forced by the actions of the small shareholders. The ?Peoples Club? have now closed even this option to the small shareholders.
?Blue Bill? and DK are linked to the single word .......PROFIT.
The intention of this Board of Directors is clearly get the planning consent any way they can and SELL the ?Peoples Club?, walk away and don?t look back.
The truth is we can?t stop them BUT we can make it uncomfortable.
We the fans of this great institution should make ?Blue Bills? life hell in terms of bad publicity.
By making a bucket load of noise using Sky, the various web sites, and press we can show ?the silver one? that whilst he owns the shares WE ARE THE CLUB.
The last frantic days of the transfer window show that BLUE BILL et al have done nothing but lie to us from the day the prospectus for DK was sent through to today about all things to do with ?The Peoples Club?
?Blue Bill? Give us ?the Peoples Club? one good reason as to why you should be allowed to carry on as ?Custodian? of EFC?
Money??? He ain?t got a pot to piss in.
Honesty??? He doesn't know what it means.
Honour??? He knows what this is as he lives among ?thieves?.
Integrety??? He ain't got that.
Contempt??? He has got plenty of that.
He basically isn't a fit and proper person. In his immortal phrase ?watch this space? ... I along with others watch to see the headline ?Kenwright sells?. It might be a dream but DK would be a nightmare.
HE/THEY MUST BE STOPPED NOW!!! EFC is not ?Blue Bills? train set. ......... It is our CLUB. LET'S SET ABOUT RECLAIMING IT.
3 Posted 11/09/2008 at 08:30:39
I agree that it seems very likely that the promise of an early settlement on Kirkby "re-opened the lines of credit". In other words, the increased possibility that Kirkby will go through enabled us to buy Feillani. Just as Earl’s and Green’s interest in Kirkby last year enabled us to buy Yakubu.
So in the real world, even the prospect of Kirkby has enabled us to buy Yakubu and Feillani. Yet Kirkby is apparently an obvious disaster for the club. How exactly does this work Christine?
4 Posted 11/09/2008 at 08:55:31
It is probably the case that once Kirkby was called in, the two guarantors required to underwrite any expenditure, got cold feet and withdrew or refused to underwrite that debt.
The rationale for this being that the investment hopes for a quick return would not be forthcoming. That, as I stated in my article, prevented David Moyes from signing any new players where expenditure was called for.
So yes, DK being called in impacted on the team management. But the question should be why should it have done?
IF there was not a vested interest at play in going to Kirkby then the guaranteeing purchase of players would not have been an issue. Hence a significant dilemna becomes apparent, is it the welfare of the club thats important or the welfare of a personal investment?
We have the right to ask because we all know there is a conflict as real as any decision made by the board in the best interests of the club, or the best interests of the directors.
Kirkby is a disaster when decisions over its outcome affect the ability for the manager to find the best players he can.
5 Posted 11/09/2008 at 09:41:33
The game is moving forward faster and faster with each passing year and we are being left in the past because of incompetentcy by the board. I don't know the answers ? Who does? ? but one thing's for sure: we need a change at the top before we are mortally wounded with no way back.
6 Posted 11/09/2008 at 09:35:29
OK, you know I agree with you that the Club could do more to keep us informed but NO business broadcasts its detailed financial affairs to the world ? for what would be achieved if it did? Are you just longing to read a headline ?Everton go bust?? Or ?Everton have no plans for new stadium?? To you and far too many like you, the only news is bad news. For God?s sake get off your soap box ? or if, as I suspect, you like it up there, try to be just a teeny bit constructive - life?s better that way!
And fellow Mailbaggers ? stop encouraging her in her misery!
7 Posted 11/09/2008 at 09:44:50
By all means disagree with the whole concept that is DK, but don?t continue to beat the club up with stupid claims such as ?no longer the peoples club? etc because the course of action they took would have been exactly the same as ANY other business faced with the same situation.
People berate them for mismanaging the club and yet jump down their collective throats when they defend themselves against the potential monthly disruption of EGMs in which half the eligble shareholders failed to attend in person anyway.
Get real, any other organisation would have done exactly the same in their position.
8 Posted 11/09/2008 at 09:56:06
Too long have I put up with your pretentious drivel without affording it the response it deserves.
Since when has removing the rights of shareholders been good thing for the club? You have repeatedly said ad nauseam that the club has no obligation to give any detail. Except of course when the actual information is factually incorrect.
As for soap box, thats exactly what this forum is, a chance for people to give their opinion in response to the lack of transparency, truth, fact or even a bloody comment.
The club CHOSE to include the fans in the Kirkby process, it can?t say that the outcome does not concern us. If they wanted to be seen as a business then they should never have asked for a mandate. They did and in doing so opened themselves up for response.
Speculation is the only alternative to truth when silence is the only response to legitimate questions.
Your response is demeaning to supporters and specifically shareholders who ARE part of that business. They have EVERY RIGHT to ask questions, at least they did before the club has effectively gagged them again.
You Sir, have your opinion, I believe as passionately in EFC as any other fan, I want success for the club, I want us to have a great stadium, but I FEAR for the club when it attacks lobby groups and its own shareholders rather than discuss possible solutions with us.
We don?t NEED to know all the financial facts, but we do need to know that the right decisions are being made about the future of OUR club.
It's not just about doing the right thing Richard, its about being seen to do the right thing.
I don?t need to be told I am a Misery. I am angry, bloody angry. You have continually praised KW, BK the board of Directors for what they do. All we see and hear is silence and lies.
So I will stop speculating when I hear some consultation with fans, see alternatives put in place should Kirkby fail and see David Moyes sign his contract!
Grow some balls Richard. We have real concerns and real worries. Perhaps you could step back and view life from your position where you believe its ok to treat the fans as mushrooms and refrain from your condescending comments at those who dare to question.
9 Posted 11/09/2008 at 10:39:36
10 Posted 11/09/2008 at 10:28:41
Do we wait for Bradley or Sainsburys or perhaps Bestway or an as yet unknown billionaire to come up with something affordable?
Meanwhile, do you really and truly support the idea of monthly EGMs.
I suggest you think carefully before answering.
11 Posted 11/09/2008 at 10:36:37
Doddy............Conformist and BK lackie
12 Posted 11/09/2008 at 10:46:59
After the developments this week, I honestly cant say when I?ll next be at GP.
I will be at Stoke this weekend, I?ll be going to Hull, cant wait for Belgium, I know its illogical, but awaydays sort of take me away from the shambles our club has become. I can pretend its not happening.
Call Christine a misery if you like, she probably is. Unfortunately that's the price she has to pay for being an Evertonian saddled with a brain.
13 Posted 11/09/2008 at 10:24:42
>Was it the ?right? decision to buy Yakubu? If we believe the speculation about the new ground being the reason we could raise funds then a ?right? decision here would surely mean that DK was a ?right? decision.
Would it be a ?right? decision for a business to run itself in accordance with most other well run establishments? If so then this new ruling made by our board would surely be a ?right? decision. I?m sure everyone would love the board to come out and tell us exactly what was going on but it?s not going to happen is it?
For example, this summer we all wanted to know when players would be bought. Then, when Kenwright said he hoped to sign 3 players in a week and Moutinho was one of them, he got slated for revealing our targets. Makes you wonder whether Kenwright?s publically stating he wants investment because he can?t take the club any further, or whether he just can?t be arsed with this hypocrisy any more.
And on that point, people have been moaning for years that Kenwright hasn?t got the money to take us any further yet, when he announces his intention to sell, whisperings start about selling out to make himself as much money as possible. Would you stay running a business under these conditions?
Would you give the fans as much opportunity to speak and decide the clubs future as Kenwright already has? I know I wouldn?t, but then again Kenwright can?t do anything right either way can he?????
14 Posted 11/09/2008 at 11:00:53
Shouldn't you be directing that question at the board and all the people who actually voted not to have a plan B?
15 Posted 11/09/2008 at 11:21:24
REQUISITION BY MEMBERS OF EXTRAORDINARY GENERAL MEETING
(Section 303 Companies Act 2006 and Article 10.3 of the Company?s Articles of Association)
We, the undersigned, being not less than one-fifth in number of members of the company as at the date of this notice REQUIRE you forthwith to proceed to convene a general meeting of the Company for the purpose of
1. Obtaining from the Board of Directors their comments on the financial performance of the club over the past eight years and under the chairmanship of Mr Kenwright and his fellow directors, specifically;
1.1 the effect on the football club of the decision to implement a policy of outsourcing commercial activities.
1.2 the effect and current status of implementing a policy of asset disposal and utilization.
1.3 the current level of debt and the club?s ability to service that debt whilst operating as a football club in the English Premier League.
1.4 the effect of relocating or not relocating in respect of the club?s ability to generate sufficient funds to meet current financial commitments.
1.5 the ability of the board to generate sufficient revenue to enable Everton Football Club to be competitive in a transfer market dominated by wealthy football club benefactors.
1.6 clarification concerning the sudden departure of both Trevor Birch and Keith Wyness from their role as CEO of Everton Football Club.
2. Obtaining from the Board of Directors actual details and a full account of past, present and future investment in the football club, specifically;
2.1 the level of actual investment into the club made by each individual member of the board directors above and beyond their acquisition of shareholding.
2.2 actual details and a full account of the search for additional outside investment undertaken in recent years in relation to the aforementioned financial performance of the football club.
2.3 clarification of approaches made to the board concerning any interest to acquire a major shareholding in the club and also clarification of the board?s interpretation of investment and whether or not the club is genuinely open to offers of external investment.
2.4 the extent of Sir Philip Green?s involvement in Everton Football Club.
2.5 an overview of the financial strategy that the club intends to implement over the next three years in relation to the aforementioned financial performance in recent years
3. Obtaining from the Board of Directors clarification of the situation to secure the services of David Moyes beyond his current contract in light of media statements that Mr Moyes wishes to work at a club that can match his ambition.
4. Obtaining from the Board of Directors further comments on the stadium issue, specifically;
4.1 the benefits of the exclusivity deal that is preventing the club from fully exploring alternative solutions to the stadium issue.
4.2 the concerns raised and potential effects on the clubs business strategy due to anticipated problems with the proposed transport plan at Kirkby which may deter supporters from attending football matches.
4.3 in light of the chairman?s comments that Goodison Park may soon struggle to attain a safety certificate.
5. To have a show of hands to pass a resolution, on receipt of the answers given by the board to the aforementioned questions, in relation to the shareholders confidence in the ability of the board to act in and secure the best long term interests of Everton Football Club.
16 Posted 11/09/2008 at 12:58:13
Obviously I don’t agree with Doddy that every word Bill says in public is true (Philip Green not a major influence on the financial affairs of EFC? Pull another one!). Bill of course has to say this in public, so I don’t blame him either.
Let me even agree with you on I think your major point. I think in an ideal world we obviously would not want such a thing as whether Kirkby is called in or not to impact David Moyes’ ability to buy the players we desperately need.
But (you know where I am going!) I do not think we are anywhere near this ideal world. We are instead in a world in which we desperately need the help of the Greens and the Earls (and the Tescos) - and they are not going to provide it out of the kindness of their hearts.
Basically - if we go to Kirkby, Green and Earl will enable us to buy Yakubu and Feillani (they did), and Leahy will enable us to get a new stadium which otherwise there is no way we could afford (he will). What’s so bad?
17 Posted 11/09/2008 at 13:07:41
As a shareholding blue it is a very sad day for EFC.
18 Posted 11/09/2008 at 13:10:13
We are paying for over 3/4 of the construction costs for Kirkby. More if the retail enabler is knocked back. Even half that outlay could generate a bigger capacity at GP, and at least comparable facilties. The same outlay could create something unique on one of the most historic stadium sites in the world. It would also be at a superior location transport wise, and would offer continuity and preservation of history/tradition too. That’s why it is "so bad"!
19 Posted 11/09/2008 at 13:17:07
So there you have it - fans, community, team selection are of little importance. It?s all about MONEY. Wonder what relationship Kenwright has with this delightful chap???
20 Posted 11/09/2008 at 13:19:20
Secondly, the question is not exactly how much Tesco is paying for (they are clearly paying a lot) - it is whether we could find anyone else to pay more than Tesco. No one has come up with any credible argument whatsoever that a better partner exists out there for us than the UK?s largest retailer.
Thirdly, I do not believe that having even a redeveloped ground in the shadow of the New Anfield will enable us to secure major new investment (I know there can be disagreement on this - but after all we don?t have it so far, and we are not exactly a secret).
Fourthly, speaking personally I would rather have Yakubu and Fellaini in our team NOW (even if they are there because Earl and Green want us to go to Kirkby).
21 Posted 11/09/2008 at 13:33:50
Firstly, where have you seen any proper estimates of cost for redevelopment other than Ward McHugh?s (GFE?s project)? Secondly, Don?t you find it slightly confusing that the club estimates that one stand on the Bullens Rd would cost as much as 3 in Kirkby? How does that work, is Kirkby in the third world?
Also, who says we need a brand new stand on that side in any case, why not a new tier behind the existing upper with exec boxes between? Would this really cost more than the equivalent capacity new-build? How is that possible? The point is, there are always options. DK has avoided comparison from day one, since those options have never been properly explored and that is plainly wrong.
Thirdly, as you well know and is well documented Tesco plc are not contributing anything to the stadium project despite their size and profits, so why keep mentioning their status as if it means anything regarding our stadium?
Fourthly, as for not being a secret...... one thing that definitely isn?t a secret is EFC?s major shareholders do not wish to dilute their shareholding (certainly not before DK) according to TESCO?s own reports, you know...... the country?s biggest retailer etc etc. Meanwhile all other major clubs have completed deals..... some more than once!
22 Posted 11/09/2008 at 13:55:29
We have our ideals of what EFC represents, the heritage of founder members etc, we all know ?our history?, to abandon that for a quick fix is dereliction of duty by this board in the manner they have handled the whole situation.
Clarity of purpose and a display of intent would be a start, but the propaganda and spin and now severing of Shareholders Association has created a bigger "them and us" situation than ever. For a large portion of supporters, the club only is beacause of ?us?. It is becoming an ever increasing gamble by Kenwright to get into a seedy bed with the new pimps he found for our club.
23 Posted 11/09/2008 at 14:23:55
Andy, albeit clothed in the usual PC/government-speak, is raising the same ’level-playing field’ concerns at the Co-operative Party meeting today (I heard him on 5Live) that many forum contributors have discussed in recent articles/mail posts.
He’s actually stating that money, and it’s inequality across the leagues, is having a detrimental effect on the game from a fan and community-perspective - something the vast majority of us agree with. The game does need to reassess the relationship with money (what’s wrong with that statement, FFS)
There are enough targets to have a pop at, without shooting someone like Andy who’s more on our side of the fence than some in the upper echelons of business and government. I think there are several within the LCC that deserve your attention first.
24 Posted 11/09/2008 at 14:44:15
Ms Foster, as a company director I presume understands all too well, just what it takes for a brand to take the ground from an entrenched market leader. Well same principles apply in footie... Now the household brands have Billionaires behind them... So, Christine the answer is..... ????? I guess the board see DK as the answer, must admit I don?t like it but haven?t seen any other real thought-out viable alternatives.
As for closing a loophole re the EGM, Christine, what other business would have agreed to hold an EGM called by such a small portion of the shareholding?
Yes we are stakeholders as far as the intellectual is concerned, but the game's changed beyond recognition. I hate it, but let?s get real... it?s ALL about business and money. We the fans ? the universe of fans, that is ? have less power than ever.
Of course we could decide to simply remove our support.... easier said than done.
25 Posted 11/09/2008 at 16:20:19
Let?s face it, absolutely nothing was achieved except to demonstrate to the RS we are at war with each other.
What really counts is Sunday at Stoke. Now, if we lose there, we really will be a club in crisis. COYB!
26 Posted 11/09/2008 at 15:52:52
How much is BK’s investment in Everton out of his total net worth?
Saying Kenwright is motivated to make profit is a load of rubbish. We have not made a profit once since 2004.
He has continued to invest in players when not doing so would have seen the club in a more profitable position.
People on this forum are very quick to say this and that about the chairman and the board. Remember this - BK has a higher percentage of his personal wealth tied up in Everton than any other supporter and continues to back us as much as he possibly can.
If every fan put the same percentage of their assets into the club as Kenwright did then the fans could own the club. Luckily nobody is willing to remortgage their house to do so because god help us if some of the baloons who post on this forum got to be in charge.
27 Posted 11/09/2008 at 17:12:28
Firstly, It’s not the same cost as 3 stands. The Goodison estimate is £71m, compared with £130m at Kirkby.
Why is it a higher cost per seat?
(1) Smaller footprint. No matter how much hand waving you do, a smaller footprint is more expensive. Has to be. If you could build the same stadium at the same cost in a smaller footprint, you’d do it at Kirkby and save money on the land.
(2) Economies of scale. It’s cheaper to do everything at once, flatten all the land at the same time, duplication of expertise, etc etc.
(3) You have to buy the land, which is more expensive (per square whatever) at Goodison than Kirkby.
(4) You have to rebuild a school.
(5) You have to squeeze more exec boxes into one stand. Kirkby spreads them out over 3 stands, Goodison would have them in one.
(6) Timing. Having to buy houses takes years - it only takes one owner to refuse and the whole thing is stuck, like Liverpool when they expanded Anfield. Meanwhile the costs of steel are climbing.
"Also, who says we need a brand new stand on that side in any case, why not a new tier behind the existing upper with exec boxes between? Would this really cost more than the equivalent capacity new-build?"
Basic problem: height, for two reasons.
(1) You have your exec boxes miles above from the pitch. They are also going to be miles away horizontally, unless you are going to build directly above upper bullens (which would either create more obstructed views, or cost a fortune to have a counterbalance structure). You want these luxery boxes to have prime view to justify their price tags.
(2) Building high is expensive.
"Fourthly, as for not being a secret...... one thing that definitely isn?t a secret is EFC?s major shareholders do not wish to dilute their shareholding (certainly not before DK) according to TESCO?s own reports, you know...... "
The report (which, as you say, isn’t written by anybody connected with Everton) SPECIFICALLY states that the club IS looking to dilute their shareholding as a means of funding the stadium.
"Meanwhile all other major clubs have completed deals..... some more than once! "
Yeah, I wish we were West Ham right now, with owners not putting a penny in and having a crazy wage structure that has crippled the club. If only Kenwright had their business acumen.
Or Newcastle, with their forward thinking management structure.
Or Liverpool - owners taking £30m a season out without putting a single penny in.
Or Man United - taking £45m a season out without putting a penny in.
Or Man City last season - putting no money in (it was all debt on the club) and sacking the manager when he made progress.
Or Aston Villa - not putting a single penny in, buying players purely by raising debt and failing to get a sponsor this season. That’s exactly like Kenwright - except of course we have one of the most lucrative sponsorships outside of the Big 4.
28 Posted 11/09/2008 at 17:39:21
Firstly it wasn?t his own assets he invested in the club.... well not entirely.
Secondly whatever money he has put into the club will make a profit if sold at a higher price regardless if Everton make a profit.
Thirdly, its not BK who is investing in players,....... its the fans, Sky, and the banks who part with their money , the latter against assets.
And finally..... are you suggesting that not to have bought players would still see us in the Premier league. Sounds like your head?s on back to front. If I was you, I would reassess my periferal alignment so as to avoid talking out of my arse.
29 Posted 11/09/2008 at 18:25:51
You guys often talk as if because it benefits Tesco (or Earl or Green or Kenwright), it can’t be benefiting Everton too. This is like saying that if I buy a six pack of Carlsberg in Tesco - somebody must be screwing all the others. In fact, I get my beer and am happy, and Carlsberg and Tesco make a profit and they are happy. It’s called a mutually beneficial transaction, and is almost what our entire civilisation is based on.
Kirkby makes sense precisely because it manages to benefit a whole host of parties (Everton, Tesco, Knowsley, Earl, a construction company, other reatailers... etc.). That’s what makes it such a good deal.
30 Posted 11/09/2008 at 18:36:45
31 Posted 11/09/2008 at 18:49:28
When BK sells the club he may make more per share than what he paid, however do you not think that if he had invested his millions in hedge funds and the like he wouldn’t have made more? I’ll tell you now he would have. A great deal more.
I’m not even going to answer the rest of your nonsense - are loans really borrowed against assets? Wow, you must be a financial genius.
I have my own frustrations with BK, I wish there was more money, but saying he is some asset stripping villan is just untrue.
The guy has a higher percentage of his personal wealth in the club than anyone on this forum. He could be making more with his money somewhere else but chooses to do what he can for the club.
Give him a break.
32 Posted 11/09/2008 at 19:56:51
33 Posted 11/09/2008 at 20:03:08
34 Posted 11/09/2008 at 20:02:06
1. For all those suggesting BK put a high percentage of his personal wealth on the line for EFC, can you be more specific. If you know this to be true, you must have an idea of his wealth and how much he PERSONALLY paid for his shares. As EFC?s report and accounts show, BK has not put one penny of his wealth into the club!!!
2. For all those advocating the rush to Kirkby can you please highlight the financial benefits in detail including an explanation as to how we will get 50,401 fans (if it ever gets a full gate) to and from the ground.
3. Can somebody please provide the detail of this supposed cash injection from Tesco who have already categorically stated that they will NOT contribute financially to EFC.
4. Can somebody also explain in detail how the cost of creating a championship standard 50,000-capacity stadium on contaminated land can be less than extending and improving a 40,000+ stadium that has held over 80,000 at one time.
Using a different analogy than Neil Pearse as we are not talking about building airplanes, it is surely more cost-effective to put an extension on your house and renovate it than build some prefabricated kit home from scratch.
35 Posted 11/09/2008 at 20:42:18
Can anybody provide details of any Premier League club apart from Arsenal who have successfully Built and moved to a new build 50,000+ all seater stadium.
36 Posted 11/09/2008 at 20:44:33
sorry forgot to say another excellent post and totally agree with what you?ve said.
From my previous definitions of "Blue Bill"?? can I now also add arrogant so that now makes him an incompetent, lying, deceitful and arrogant fantasist who is not fit to be chairman of our once great club.
37 Posted 11/09/2008 at 19:52:06
"Firstly, where have you seen any proper estimates of cost for redevelopment other than Ward McHugh?s (GFE?s project)?
I ask again..... where have you seen a proper estimate. You have seen Tesco’s experts pluck costs from mid air, nothing else.
"Firstly, It?s not the same cost as 3 stands. The Goodison estimate is £71m, compared with £130m at Kirkby."
I believe the original £78m came from the construction costing of £100m, with £30m contingency and incidentals, but saying that, they manipulated the figures so much over the months it would be easy to confuse the issue...... but regardless you seem to accept that it is more than twice as expensive to build at GP than in Kirkby.
"(1) Smaller footprint. No matter how much hand waving you do, a smaller footprint is more expensive. Has to be. If you could build the same stadium at the same cost in a smaller footprint, you?d do it at Kirkby and save money on the land."
Not necessarily so. The land at Kirkby is a freeby therefore it is not a costing parameter in the design of that stadium...... however, larger footprints are often confused for cheaper if they facilitate relatively low rake, low vertical construction and basic design format if that’s what you want for EFC. This however can be offset by similar material costs and much larger roof area which can generate complex and therefore expensive roofing solutions. There is however no reason why this need equate to double or 3 times the cost, confined location or not. Spurs have priced up several options and have concluded that while it may cost £300m to upgrade confined WHL to 55,000, the same will cost them £500m to build from scratch elsewhere. In otherwords comparisons can be deceptive, you have to itemise where the costs are..... like I said have we seen a proper independent costing of redevelopment in all its potential guises? The answer is a resounding NO..... and that demonstrates the rub here!!
"(2) Economies of scale. It?s cheaper to do everything at once, flatten all the land at the same time, duplication of expertise, etc etc."
It also requires the biggest initial outlay as opposed to incremental development still favoured by the most clubs in order to expand. What about the fact that GP already boasts 40,500 seats. All upper tier obstructions can be eradicated by new roof which will have a significantly smaller area than Kirkby’s. Lower tier obstructions can also be greatly reduced by removing rearmost rows in Lower Bullens and reprofilling to fill pathway at rear of paddock.... concourse areas would be increased severalfold. This would mean that GP would need to only find 12-14k new seats to match Kirkby’s capacity.... Tell me again how that will cost more than 50k at Kirkby. (which incidentally will never receive planning permission for expansion once knowsley gets its shops)
"(3) You have to buy the land, which is more expensive (per square whatever) at Goodison than Kirkby."
Has EFC asked about cost of land on this side? If not, how do they know? The houses surrounding GP are the cheapest of any league club in the country, and there are only 2 streets that abutt on this side therefore the numbers required are small not over 70 as at Kirkby (which are new houses). Isn’t the land in Kirkby a contaminated greenfield site too? Also, the major expansion can take place at the Park end which we fully own with enabling development which would give a 100% return also viable with no planning restrictions at that end.
"(4) You have to rebuild a school."
Not necessarily since infringement needn’t be that drastic, but it is a school that may be relocating in anycase. Just a 12 m depth landtake could generate 13 additional rows minimum, and would barely infringe the school yard. This is over 3,300 new seats on this side alone. These could be fronted by 33 boxes similar in size to the current ones. Even at £5,000 per seat (hope that is sufficiently inflated for you) that would only be £16m (£71m???). In actual fact.....Over 19 rows at 34 degrees rake can be added at the rear of the existing upper tier and still give good c-value and excellent viewing angles and distances (more if there was a pitch move). The latter 2 parameters far superior than that on offer with the Kirkby design. The result would be a transformed stand with a capacity of over 14,000 for the fraction of the cost of a new build of similar capacity.
"(5) You have to squeeze more exec boxes into one stand. Kirkby spreads them out over 3 stands, Goodison would have them in one."
I showed with scale drawings how more exec boxes could be built on this side alone than at the entire Kirkby stadium. Also, an exec tier could be built beneath the current Top Balcony if that wasn’t sufficient, furthermore incremental phasing allows proper assessment of demand as facilities are provided. Kirkby provides little flexibility for this.
"(6) Timing. Having to buy houses takes years - it only takes one owner to refuse and the whole thing is stuck, like Liverpool when they expanded Anfield. Meanwhile the costs of steel are climbing."
CPO legislation as moved on apace since the Kemlyn Rd ladies. Been down Edge Lane lately? Don’t forget Tesco are talking about knocking down 70 new homes a care home and a large school.... or don’t he rules apply to them?
"Basic problem: height, for two reasons."
Glasgow Rangers managed it at Ibrox, building above an existing listed structure and had to contain construction within the existing structure. We would be building behind bridging the road.
"(1) You have your exec boxes miles above from the pitch. They are also going to be miles away horizontally, unless you are going to build directly above upper bullens (which would either create more obstructed views, or cost a fortune to have a counterbalance structure). You want these luxery boxes to have prime view to justify their price tags."
I think you need to check your dimensions.... Horizontally they would be nearer than those proposed for Kirkby since the pitch perimeter area is significantly shorter at GP than Kirkby. The back wall is only 27m from the touch line. Also these would be more elevated with far superior viewing angles and shorter viewing distances than even at the Emirates or COM stadium.
"The report (which, as you say, isn?t written by anybody connected with Everton) SPECIFICALLY states that the club IS looking to dilute their shareholding as a means of funding the stadium."
I’m affraid you have misread that one.
"Yeah, I wish we were West Ham right now, with owners not putting a penny in and having a crazy wage structure that has crippled the club. If only Kenwright had their business acumen. Or Newcastle, with their forward thinking management structure. Or Liverpool - owners taking £30m a season out without putting a single penny in. Or Man United - taking £45m a season out without putting a penny in. Or Man City last season - putting no money in (it was all debt on the club) and sacking the manager when he made progress. Or Aston Villa - not putting a single penny in, buying players purely by raising debt and failing to get a sponsor this season. That?s exactly like Kenwright - except of course we have one of the most lucrative sponsorships outside of the Big 4."
I think the point was about the availibility and numbers of investors out there, so thanks for listing just a few. So you wouldn’t like to be like Man City right now? (admittedly no-one knows how it’s going to run, but outbidding Chelsea on the 1st day and being able to outspend the rest put together seems pretty juicy to me. This fella is capable of turning City into the biggest club on the planet) That said, I didn’t realise BK had saved us from investment, I thought he said he was looking for it and it just wasn’t out there?
Apologies to Christine for wandering off thread.
38 Posted 11/09/2008 at 21:13:47
If you have 75% of the shares in many businesses you are allowed to change the Articles, this is normally done if the business changes hands, with one predominant owner who has bought out the smaller shareholders. In this case that has not happened.
The fundementals of the business have not changed. EFC is a football club, not a supermarket or a baseball club. The environment we play in has changed but not the core business. The interests of small shareholders and their ability to have a say in how THEIR company is run is a fundemental right. To hold the board accountable for its actions should they not reply to those concerns. The club has elected to change its constitution and withdraw that right. Thats an effective way of gagging people who own part of the business.
Thats not speculation. Thats fact.
The board have made a decision, rightly or wrongly, to put all their eggs into one basket and they have stifled any critiscism and sought to ridicule any alternatives.
Thats why the EGM was called.
Richard Dodd asks why I can?t be a little constructive, Doddy, why can?t the club be a little less obstructive in its dealings with its shareholders and fans. EFC didn?t grant anybody anything by having the EGM. It had to do it because thats exactly what shareholders are entitled too. Changing the Articles of Association to make things more comfortable for those in power, therefore less accountable, removes the legitimate right of shareholders to question how their club is run. The people in question may well have been uncomfortable in the Alex Yound suite that night, but sometimes you have to front up and answer your shareholders. It goes with the territory.
39 Posted 11/09/2008 at 21:53:19
Since when has the case been made for Kirkby being viable?
Tom Hughes has given a number of viable options above, but then viability is dependent on what you want as an outcome.
40 Posted 11/09/2008 at 21:35:53
Taking a broad brush first, your post moves back and forth between what is POSSIBLE and what is AFFORDABLE. Nobody is questioning that mankind has reached a level where it can build a 90k stadium on Everton’s footprint. Equally, nobody is questioning that a stadium at Goodison is preferable to an equivalent stadium in Kirkby. Not the point though. We can barely afford Kirkby - we can’t afford anything more expensive.
"Not necessarily so. The land at Kirkby is a freeby therefore it is not a costing parameter in the design of that stadium...... however, larger footprints are often confused for cheaper if they facilitate relatively low rake, low vertical construction and basic design format if that?s what you want for EFC."
Again, you end there on what we would like. We can’t afford what I want.
In any case, you work around my point. The original question was how can a NEW stand at Goodison cost twice as much as a NEW stand Kirkby. One of the reasons for this IS the smaller footprint. As I said, if you could build the stand cheaper on a smaller footprint, you would.
I’m not going to argue on the other points on what is possible - clearly you outrank me that respect. However, you keep asking me have I seen an independent costing for a Goodison rebuild. The answer is no. To throw the question back, have you? Because a lot of your answers are "it’s been done/I have drawings that show it can be done", but the examples you give were much more expensive stadiums than we can afford.
What I would like to see is something indicitive of the costs. Can somebody point out to me a peice of stadium reconstruction similar to Goodison done at that price? Or proposed at that price? Because all the ones I see compared are always "see, it’s been done (at great cost) at Ibrox/Newcastle/Croak Park. But we would do it cheaper". Who has done it cheaper?
I work in finance. I don’t understand things like contruction costings in detail; however, I still have to understand these things on some level. I do this by comparison - I assume two similar things cost the same amount unless someone can explain to me what the difference is, and I look for examples to compare to.
For example, you suggest building extra rows over Bullens road, and replacing the roof, building loads of executive boxes for 3,300 seats. You suggest a cost of £16m.
I freely admit I know nothing the market price of each of these things. However, Blackpool FC are buidling a new 3,300 capacity stand. Totally basic stand, and it’s being built on land that was flattened years ago (they only have 2 stands at the moment). That will cost £11m.
Now, are you telling me that with all the extra difficulties at Goodison (i.e. taking down a roof, building over a road, all the exec boxes) the difference is only £5m? You could be right for all I know. However, until somebody can show me an example of something similar being done at a similar cost, it just seems like hopeful dreaming to me.
""The report (which, as you say, isn?t written by anybody connected with Everton) SPECIFICALLY states that the club IS looking to dilute their shareholding as a means of funding the stadium."
I?m affraid you have misread that one."
No I haven’t. It states they are looking for private equity funding.
"I think the point was about the availibility and numbers of investors out there, so thanks for listing just a few."
Just a few? I was under the impression I listed all of the major ones. Abramovich isn’t an investor. It doesn’t look like ADUB are investors (though they are going to have to prove that long term ). Did I miss anyone else?
And, if not, which of the investors would you like to have seen at Everton? Because the assumption seems to be that any old investor would be a good thing, whereas I don’t see a single INVESTOR I would want in the Premier League.
41 Posted 11/09/2008 at 22:53:33
There are costings for all stadium developments available. BTW Croke park was built in its entirety for not much more than DK, and is far bigger and superior in design quality. Not bad for a charity/amateur sports organisation building on a ridiculously confined and problematic site. There are also costs per seat of new developments available in journals such as stadia and panstadia, and books such as stadium engineering and stadium design. Of course this is a moving target at the moment.
As far as comparing relocating and redeveloping it is still the case that the majority choose the latter if it is viable, and/or if there is something of value to preserve in terms of existing stands, location or transport. I chose the Spurs example to illustrate the saving they envisage for their admittedly high quality aspirations in the most expensive building plot in the UK. Redevelopment for them would cost only 60% of relocating for a similar quality stadium.
In terms of general costings small basic single tier stands can still be built for as little as £1,000 per seat.... I believe Barr are building a whole stadium for Colchester at this rate. Complexity and scale then increase this cost upto Wembley type levels at nearly 10 times that. DK construction costs are of the order of £2k per seat, so I believe it would not be unreasonable to assume that an extension to the upper Bullens would not need to exceed £5k per seat (which is greater than the Emirates). Similarly for an extension of the Parkend and a corner section to combine these.
Can?t be bothered digging out similar for other stadia at this time, but might tomorrow. However, the main point I am trying to make is it what point does this costing comparison favour one or the other? We haven?t been given that comparison because I believe it wont favour Tesco?s offer and the whole process will fall into disrepute.
IMO even a stadium for nowt would probably not justify the transport gamble. Even the greatest stadium in the world would be worthless if fans can?t get to it readily and at least as conveniently as the present venue. As someone who was on the design team for Merseytram line one from Kirkby and worked in Kirkby for over 6 yrs I can tell you that will never be the case there.
42 Posted 12/09/2008 at 00:02:59
43 Posted 12/09/2008 at 00:09:23
44 Posted 12/09/2008 at 01:19:18
There are costings for all stadium developments available. BTW Croke park was built in its entirety for not much more than DK, and is far bigger and superior in design quality. Not bad for a charity/amateur sports organisation building on a ridiculously confined and problematic site. "
Is that true? I was going from the interview with the Croke stadium director on the KEOIC website, in which it is stated that Croke was developed "at great expense" compared to an out of town site.
"Redevelopment for [Spurs] would cost only 60% of relocating for a similar quality stadium. "
But Spurs have zero obstructed views, and some of the best facilities of any Premier League ground for Corporates already. Everton have 10% of obstructed views, and that only counts the ones obstructing goalposts. Their starting position is much better than Everton’s.
And yet it STILL costs £300m to rebuild.
"DK construction costs are of the order of £2k per seat, so I believe it would not be unreasonable to assume that an extension to the upper Bullens would not need to exceed £5k per seat"
This is where I am unsure (speaking from my cynical financial perspective). You aren’t quite comparing eggs with eggs. When you quote "cost per seat", that’s for an entire stand. In layman’s terms, the seats at the bottom are easy to build, while the seats at the top are harder, and the costs average out. You are basically suggesting to just build the seats at the top. Fine; but then we aren’t quite on our "cost per seat for a regular stand" scale here.
I’m also unsure about the use of this "cost per seat" measure as a reliable guide no matter what the stand size. From all figures that I have seen, smaller stands have lower costs per seat that larger ones, and that the cost per seat especially seems to jump when you go to two tiers. Am I wrong there?
I appreciate you are only estimating, and that you are doing so from a very educated position. But can’t you give me something to cling onto on the reliability of that figure? A cost figure for another ground where they added a tier on figure?
"However, the main point I am trying to make is it what point does this costing comparison favour one or the other? We haven?t been given that comparison because I believe it wont favour Tesco?s offer and the whole process will fall into disrepute."
You have been given a figure. A very rough one, I admit. But you can’t expect the board to spend a fortune on every single possibility - the sensible approach is to figure out roughly how much things will cost and go from there.
All I’m asking is for something reasonable to show that it’s at least close. It really isn’t enough to say "I reckon it might be better at Goodison" and just assume the board haven’t looked at it. They have looked at these things - before Kenwright as well. Several CEOs and two owners have come to the same conclusion.
Now I’m really not ruling out the possibility you are right. But you need to give me some figures to make me believe. Because I’m sat here, being told that Everton can add 4000 seats for £16m, and I can’t work out why Spurs need to spend £300m? It’s not just the land (all of Fulham’s land, certainly the most valuable of any football team in the country, is worth about £120m). The figures just don’t ring true in my head.
Help me, because genuinely, I want to believe that a 50k stadium at Goodison with no obstructed views is financially possible. But more than anything, I want to see progress. We have let Goodison grow old, and we need to do something.
45 Posted 12/09/2008 at 10:20:28
Personally I have too many memories invested in Goodison Park to ever want to leave... but we're in the hands of money men, and sadly we the fans and our hopes and dreams will always be secondary. We?ve seen the money men change the face of so many clubs recently, and I fear things can only get worse.... Decent post by the way!
46 Posted 12/09/2008 at 10:25:13
Regardless of the spin, the hype and maybe the reality of the financial situation that Kirkby is the only option for the current owners, I just can?t imagine that the new stadium will be anything other than average. However, if we do move to Kirkby, then I look forward to Simon Skinner, Richard Dodd and many others leading the guided tours and highlighting the state-of-the-art facilities, the bold and innovative architectural statements, the facts and figures on increased revenue and the diverse programme of non-matchday events that makes us the new destination for the 21st century and beyond...
47 Posted 12/09/2008 at 11:08:54
48 Posted 12/09/2008 at 11:40:01
Just because I question the reality of the Kirkbydome and whether it is right for us doesn’t make me narrow minded and certainly not a racist. I’m half Irish and half Jamaican and if anyone wants to make racist statements to me, my family or friends then they better be ready for the fallout !! To imply that anyone who doesn’t tow the party line would enjoy ’race’ nights is offensive and demeans our blue family.
49 Posted 12/09/2008 at 10:04:55
"Is that true? I was going from the interview with the Croke stadium director on the KEOIC website, in which it is stated that Croke was developed "at great expense" compared to an out of town site."
Approx 250m Euros for the lot..... over 80,000 seats over 4 tiers built above railway lines etc. It is true a blank canvas, basic stadium is generally cheaper, especially if you would have to replace everything at the existing location. We don’t necessarily have to do that. The GAA knew this but they still chose to stay due to the benefits of centrality, continuity and preservation of history. They can add greater value than £x,y,z per seat comparsions and their decision has ultimately been vindicated.
Their east stand has 2 of the fattest roof supporting columns in the league, that cause several obstructions on this side.
"Everton have 10% of obstructed views, and that only counts the ones obstructing goalposts. Their starting position is much better than Everton?s."
It is true that they haven’t sat idly and have redeveloped however land costs around GP are a fraction of that around WHL with much of our required new footprint on land we already own at the Park end. On top of that we already have 4,000 seats more than them as our starting point. All upper tier obstructions can be completely erradicated by re-roofing. Only those in the lower Bullens and lower Gwladys would remain, and even these could be greatly reduced by cutting out all obstructed seats behind the second row of supporting columns in these areas. In the lower Bullens case 3 new rows of completely unobstrucetd seats would be inserted in the path behind the paddock to offset the loss at the rear. Those at the rear of the mainstand could also be offset by adding at the front as already done towards the Parkend with exec boxes moved beneath the Top Balcony with vastly superior viewing quality, transforming this side for a fraction of the cost of a new build of similar capacity and scale.
"And yet it STILL costs £300m to rebuild."
But..... This is Emirates type quality and scale. They have other less ambitious plans to just transform one or both side stands to meet the same or slightly smaller capacity. They have been looking at ALL the options. I heard a while ago that an announcement was imminent but haven’t checked since.
"This is where I am unsure (speaking from my cynical financial perspective). You aren?t quite comparing eggs with eggs. When you quote "cost per seat", that?s for an entire stand. In layman?s terms, the seats at the bottom are easy to build, while the seats at the top are harder, and the costs average out. You are basically suggesting to just build the seats at the top. Fine; but then we aren?t quite on our "cost per seat for a regular stand" scale here. I?m also unsure about the use of this "cost per seat" measure as a reliable guide no matter what the stand size. From all figures that I have seen, smaller stands have lower costs per seat that larger ones, and that the cost per seat especially seems to jump when you go to two tiers. Am I wrong there?"
We are talking hypothetically hence the ballpark figures. There are lots of variables so comparisons can be sketchy and easily misconstrued..... but I can only stress that placing a tier behind an existing stand cannot cost as much as building a whole new stand of the same total capacity. Unless that new tier more than doubled the capacity, which is not what I am proposing at all. In fact I’m not really proposing anything other than one option that could be completely enhance an existing classic Archie Leitch double decker to give it more capacity, much larger concourse areas, executive provision and greatly reduced obstructed views for a fraction of the cost of a complete new stand. Of course this new section could be a stand alone new tier that could be built upto at a later date should the old stand need replacement. Like I say, just one option that should have been properly costed by the club.
"I appreciate you are only estimating, and that you are doing so from a very educated position. But can?t you give me something to cling onto on the reliability of that figure? A cost figure for another ground where they added a tier on figure?"
Ipswich managed to transform both end stands formerly single tier into double-deckers very cheaply.....I believe it was 14,000 new seats in total for £22m in 2002, they akso managed to achieve this with minimal to no reduction in capacity using pre-fabricated construction in tight confined location. The stadium of light was expanded by adding over 7,000 new seats behind the existing stand for just £7m in 2000. Newcastle created over 16,000 new seats on 2 sides with a vast roof that incurred serious structural considerations (especially the removal of the previous pre-stressed cantilever structure) multi-level exec provision and awkward topography for £42m a year later. I did have a full list but can’t find it at the mo.
The rough figure was to paint the gloomiest picture and has been applied after-the-fact by the company responsible for delivering DK. Atherden Fuller are replacing an entire stand at Hearts with some real quality buildings at its rear on a major Edinburgh thoroughfare for £51m, (10,000 seats) yet KSS are talking £71m. The sensible approach was to commision a design competition after having assessed with the planning authorities the full scope of expansion and land cost to create a design brief for competing architectural practices. Neither has been done.
"They have looked at these things - before Kenwright as well. Several CEOs and two owners have come to the same conclusion."
Again this is an urban myth. Dunford confessed after KD that there were NO feasibilty studies carried out prior to both KD and the original Kirkby scheme. Furthermore the KSS study was dated November 2007..... several months after the last vote (not pre-exclusivity as it should have been), and again is heavily weighted to promote a biased outcome. For instance there are no corners filled to maximise capacity. The mainstand side currently with 12,000 seats is reduced to a mere 6,000, and there is no attempt to maximise capacity at the Park end (where space is available) nor expand in any way across Bullens Rd despite LCC planning offices receptiveness to this idea. They evenused an ammended version of my design and drawings in their report haha. In otherwords this whole episode is an afterthought, not the pre-requisite it should have been. On top of that the transport strategy has decended into farce with the expert at the EGM unable to answer concerns despite this report being in its 3rd revision.
50 Posted 12/09/2008 at 11:53:28
How does put up or shut up measure against exclusivity agreements?
As far as majorities are concerned explain how EVERY poll on every Evertonian forum post ballot as reflected a majority against DK, they’re all archived.... check them out. This has accelerated with every passing month as each of the vote winning lies has been disproven and the CEO who spouted them sacked. Explain how at the EGM with a 700 attendees over 600 voted to drop DK forthwith despite glossy presentations and experts (that equates to a far greater majority than anything previous). I too drink on County Rd and most people I know haven’t even met a Yes Voter. I am more than prepared to meet you to conduct a quick straw poll in any of the pubs if you want.
51 Posted 12/09/2008 at 12:25:17
52 Posted 12/09/2008 at 12:27:05
What Alan is trying to say is that when certain people (and we know who they are) slap their views on people, they make out virtually every fan agrees with them. I?m sure these polls were against DK. How many people voted in these polls? I?d guess at 2000 or so? If 1000 odd people were against DK, does that mean the 36 000 or so who go to the match are all against DK? Or the thousands more who don?t attend, are all of them against it too? Only a very small percentage of fans go on these sites. It might be the majority of a site, but not the majority of Everton fans.
I think there are many thousands against it, but there are also many thousands who are for it and that is what a lot of people can?t admit. Let?s not start all this ?I?ve never met a ?yes? voter nonsense. The majority of people I know are for it, but I have some friends who are massively against it.
Richard, people don?t mind other people questioning DK and the board , etc. ? it?s just just some people will only see their own point of view and are adamant (often in an aggressive manner) that they are right. Me? I think there have been a lot of mistakes, some things have been done well and I don?t think that Everton is about to go out of existence, like some catastrophising people do on here. Maybe I shouldn?t turn up at Stoke on Sunday in case Everton are no more??
53 Posted 12/09/2008 at 13:14:58
How dare you try to imply that I or any no voter for that matter is a racist. If there is a bigot amongst us I suggest you take a good look in the mirror.
I have never abused, used bad language or ridiculed other posts no matter how abusive, patronising or offensive.
If I choose to speculate on a subject I know well having been a Group Ceo, held various Directorships across the world, for multibational companies with responsibility for revenues that dwarf Everton Football club. I sit on advisory boards for Corporate Governance. So forgive me if I say I do have insights into business.
Business is all about speculation, that how money is made. .
You have every right to air your views as I have mine. At least I give mine with some credibility and leave personal attaks to those who wish to demean themselves.
54 Posted 12/09/2008 at 13:18:07
Perhaps some people are also sick of the endless "we’ve had the vote" or "put up or shut up" brigade. The actual vote was less than 3:2 (of those who voted) in favour of continuing exploration of Kirkby..... easily the smallest margin in any of the ground-move votes, and one that was supported by no substance. Over 10,000 voting against it despite no club sponsored alternative. Since then we have had the whole series of untruths exposed and an EGM. ALL the polls on TW and elsewhere have had sizeable responses and are therefore representative of the shift that has taken place. There has been numerous threads by yes-voters who have long since changed their mind, and none in the other direction as far as I know. Hence the fear of a "show of hands" at the EGM, and the efforts to avert a repeat performance. Personally, I too am not so interested in the polls etc, there is enough to mull over regarding the actual issues and the poor process, or lack of it to date. The EGM only served to highlight those untruths and defficiencies throughout.
55 Posted 12/09/2008 at 13:37:08
56 Posted 12/09/2008 at 14:45:59
It’s also a bit rich to accuse someone of ’posting the same old rubbish’, while hypocritically posting ’the same old rubbish’.
57 Posted 12/09/2008 at 15:07:21
I dont find any of Christine?s posts boring nor offensive. In fact, quite the reverse ? she always writes eloquently and usually well thought-out posts.
It doesn't really matter whether "No" voters as we have become titled are in the majority or minority. What really matters is that over 10,000 regular matchgoing Evertonians voted against a proposal that has long since been proven at best ill thought-out and at worst totally deceitful.
I am sure there are some fans who take the view WTF it?s only Kirkby and if it helps buy 1 or 2 more players it?s OK but there are some of us who see much more sinister forces at work that will be to the medium- to long-term detriment of our club.
I have yet to see any "Yes" voter as you have now become known who can explain in detail how taking on an annual interest Bill of between £8 and 10 million will generate an extra £10 million for players let alone explain how 50,401 supporters can get to or from the game.
58 Posted 12/09/2008 at 16:12:13
59 Posted 12/09/2008 at 15:54:56
I am surprised at you! (With you being a right wing libertarian) All economic activity is based on speculation. What is the City of London based upon it?s about trying to speculate what foreign markets are going to? Just over ten years ago two college graduates speculated that designing a better way to conduct internet searches that might attract advertising might make a bob or two, ten years on I am sure the guys who designed Google are pretty happy they speculated.
Alan what do you want people who voted no, to do, riot sing songs, wear a badge? Over 10,000 dissented when we getting the world class stadium for next to nothing, and being promised state of the art transport solution, I think we are numerous enough, Al and our numbers have swelled since the vote. Alan I am sure you will be happy to know that the 6th richest man in the world has jibbed his interest in Newcastle and is coming to watch us play Standard Liege next week. If Mr Ambani (Check spelling) does buy BK out, for once I will be glad to say its just business
60 Posted 12/09/2008 at 16:33:23
you lost me when you said you support ALL that is Everton.
Does that include me,Christine and the other 10000+ matchgoing supporters.
I have said this before and I hope it does not sound boring but if you took your head out of BK’s arse for a while you might see the wood for the trees.
And even you must admit you almost took an anti BK stance on transfer deadline night.
It must be wonderful living in fantasyland where nobody tells lies and verything is run fantastically well.
61 Posted 12/09/2008 at 16:40:26
But, I felt guity for my doubt when I awoke to the news that - as ever - BB had come up with the funds to enable Davey to make yet another record signing.
In future I shall know better than to doubt in the slightest the man who has done so much to re-establish Everton as a leading force in the game. Long reign Blue Bill!
62 Posted 12/09/2008 at 16:20:50
How many is many, many? Are they personal friends of yours? Can we have a list? Shouldn’t be too difficult seeing as you know so many........ I doubt you know anyone who is sick of Christine’s postings. Shame you can’t actually criticise their content, then you may have some credibility. Generally I find sycophants far more sickening than even the most outspoken protester, each to their own I suppose.
Then there’s the old weak-fisted "anti-Everton slur", again saved for when a valid argument can’t be made. Personally, I support EFC not EFC’s board nor anyone on it. I supported the club a long time before most of them arrived and hopefully will do a long time after they have gone. Therefore as a season ticket holder of over 30 years, and shareholder I, and for that matter any other discerning blue who saw through the deceit, and those that have since acknowledged the potential magnitude of the consequences of it have the right to protest against any decisions I/they believe will be detrimental to the club’s future. You’ve been had.... its not our fault you either can’t or wont admit it, but what is more anti-Everton....... ignoring all the lies and blindly plodding on despite them or questioning the project built on pure fabrication? Thankfully, the vast majority of shareholders know the answer to that one, even if you don’t!
63 Posted 12/09/2008 at 17:03:26
It must be horrible living in ?catastrophy land? where everybody tells lies and everything is so so awful.
64 Posted 12/09/2008 at 17:24:31
Surely one of the best parts of supporting a team like we do, and especially ours is the feeling of unity, that we are with our people, that 40,000 people are in the same place desperately wanting the same thing.
Obviously we have very differing opinions on how our club is run at the moment and especially regarding the ground move.
But please people, can we focus on giving an opinion and reacting to the opinions that we read? Not focussing on specific people "You’re always..." - down that road leads personal abuse and venom.
Ignore the name of the poster and say what you think of the opinion, not the person who gave it.
65 Posted 12/09/2008 at 18:14:41
ps: Christine: Let me know if you want me to remove your rather embarrassing assumption that "race night" was some KKK event held by KEIOC... [Probably a good sign that this thread has perhaps run its course!]
66 Posted 12/09/2008 at 22:02:41
The only people I have called liars are proven liars like Kenwright, Wyness and Ian Ross (on behalf of EFC).
I have never called fellow Evertonians liars although I do think some come out with tripe.
However, if you think all is well in "Bill?s World" then I am happy for you.
67 Posted 12/09/2008 at 23:10:00
Alan Wilo, my apologise for the retort. FYI I don;t have to justify my roles to you or any one else.
To any other poster that takes offence to mine or other posters you are quite welcome to respond with your version of reality. There are many subjects worth debating but to slag people off personally is pointless, if you have something worth saying, say it.
My posts are my view, my take.
It's sad that the point of the article has been lost in personal abuse. The article still stands as a commentary on a technique to gag shareholders.
I don't take a view that my perspective is the right one or the only one. My apologies if they do. But I am not an apologist for the views I take.
Neither should any of us be. That's the whole point of the TWF to debate views about this club and football in general.
68 Posted 13/09/2008 at 19:36:49
Offensive material removed by moderator. Please do not call people "arseholes" or discourage free debate. Thanks
69 Posted 13/09/2008 at 21:12:21
70 Posted 13/09/2008 at 21:35:59
Address the issues, and stop making it personal. Go on, see if you can mange that.
71 Posted 13/09/2008 at 21:43:05
Again I will ask any pro-Kirkby people the question, WHY ARE WE THE ONLY CLUB IN THE PREMIER LEAGUE WHO CRY POVERTY, WHEN EVERY OTHER CLUB IS SCREAMING HOW MUCH MONEY THEY MAKE IN THE SAID PREMIER LEAGUE?
72 Posted 13/09/2008 at 22:18:45
73 Posted 14/09/2008 at 00:11:04
But it is unlikely to have come from the operating budget, which, as Jay Harris points out, is typically in the red to the tune of £5M or £10M, each year... and mounting up all the time (£60M is the current estimate). Meaning that all the income, yes, even the Sky money, is accounted for ? as in already allocated or spent!
We are at liberty to disbelieve that but the club is required to publish audited accounts. Unfortunately, the timing means they are always 6 to 18 months out of date when we get to see them. But methinks you will have your answer only by doing a comparison of Everton?s accounts with those of other Premier League club ? none of which I have any familiarity with.
The other much easier approach is simply to disbelieve Blue Bill.... which leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that (a) there is money (loads of it, as per all other Prem clubs)... and (b) it is being set aside for DK rather than being used in the transfer window to buy the players we desperately needed.
74 Posted 14/09/2008 at 00:48:31
As I said on another thread, every other club is making a fortune out of the Premier League. But BK is always crying poverty ? very year not just now. He has raped this club of ours, he has sold every asset we had. He has borrowed money off everyone and anyone. 12 outstanding loans or mortgages not in Bill Kenwright's name but in Everton FC's Name. I have no objection to anyone making money, but don't lie repeatedly to the people over the amount of time that you Kenwright have had to rectify your mistakes. As I have said before, Kenwright, you're a liar and a conman. And you will never get away with it.
75 Posted 14/09/2008 at 04:56:48
How much do you think he’s taken? And how’s he doing it such that it doesn’t show up on the books? Or do the inconvenient little details like that get in the way of your clear image of his culpability? Surely if we follow your logic, the only way to look at it is that Bill IS "getting away with it" as you say. Because no-one is taking him to task for that.
My only thought has been that he stands to make a big profit on his shares if current valuations of the club hold true... and if he finds a buyer who will come even half-way to those valuations. That is how it worked for Agent Johnson (who was, by the way, far cleverer than Bill has been in manipulating share splits to maximize his personal return). Bill’s believers are shocked by such thoughts, claiming that his only interest is the club, and they remain in denial about the potentially massive windfall he could realise on the sale of his shares. But that does not make him a conman or, as you clearly suggest, and embezzler.
76 Posted 14/09/2008 at 06:03:13
My fear has always been that the deal of the century only applied to the directors of the club who do stand to make a considerable profit on their personal investment.
That fear is where it will leave the club as a result. I have said on previous threads / articles many months ago that this is what it will come down to. If Kirkby goes ahead it opens the door for an incoming investor to buy up shares owned by BK and others. If Kirkby fails then it opens up the sale od said shares, but not at the value the directors were expecting / hoping for.
So one could say with justification that they are speculating with the future of Everton FC?
77 Posted 14/09/2008 at 10:27:41
First of all, the basis of all your argument ("every club is making a fortune out of the Premier League") is factually incorrect. Some clubs (eg Chelsea, Man City) are simply having money pumped into them. Others (eg Newcastle, West Ham, Portsmouth) have clearly been struggling financially and are trying to ’balance the books’ a bit recently. Many others (Middlesborough, Bolton, Fulham etc etc) are hardly rolling in it. Even our good friends across the park can’t afford to build the new stadium they need.
Secondly, although it is boring to repeat it. Unless Bill is almost literally siphoning off money from the club, the only way Kirkby can make him even more money is if some prospective buyer thinks that Kirkby makes the club more valuable. If, as I am sure you believe, Kirkby makes the club less valuable, then only an idiot will pay more for Bill’s shares with Kirkby than without. So Bill is not acting in his own self interest by going to Kirkby. Investors really do look at the prospective financial returns of their investments!
All the No ’Bill will make a killing out of Kirkby’ arguments can only be based on the belief that some idiot will pay extra for ’Disaster Kirkby’ (by your lights). Just not that many idiots out there with £200M to invest in a football club.
78 Posted 14/09/2008 at 11:28:36
Here’s the problem. The Kirkby ground is essentially an illiquid, unrealisable property asset. Ambani (just for example) can’t buy Everton and then ’sell the ground’ to someone else later on as if it were an office block that he’d bought. You can’t sell the ground off separately, and say turn it into a block of flats (for one thing, it will be completely encumbered by restrictions from KBC and Tesco). Or indeed sell the ground to someone else who might want it (eg perhaps Man City would like it for their reserves to play in).
You can only buy or sell the club. And as the first page of financial theory tells us: the value of a business is the net present value of its discounted future cash flows. Simply: it is the cash it will generate in the future for the owner. Nos believe the club will generate LESS cash in the future because (as Gavin, Tony and Jay and so many others have tirelessly argued) the cash debt payments will exceed the cash income (because crowds will be lower, the corporate amenities will bomb etc. etc.).
So, if you are right, the club WILL BE WORTH LESS AS A RESULT OF KIRKBY. And any intelligent investor will see this (after all, it’s obvious to you!), and will pay less. And then Bill CANNOT make a killing out of Kirkby.
You Nos actually have a much stronger argument than the one you are making, because of your obsession with Bill. It is that Kirkby will indeed be a financial disaster (for all the reasons you state), and it will actually make investment in the club LESS likely. (As a byproduct it will obviously depress the value of Bill’s shares, but that is hardly the main event here compared to the future of the club.) Now THAT is a frightening scenario (and could be true).
Why the hell do you guys instead keep arguing that Kirkby will look like such a good thing to prospective investors that they will rush in, pump money into the club, and give Bill a massive payday? I thought you were supposed to be against Kirkby!
79 Posted 14/09/2008 at 11:07:56
I think some of the issues surround the intricacies of Everton’s ownership itself, and its relationship with, and backing from various characters who’s intentions and motives won’t necessarily align with that idyl of having the "honourable Evertonian at the helm" that some are so desperate to defend/promote, as opposed to the possible reality of him being a simple figurehead under the financial control of others. As far as them packaging EFC in a shiny new stadium to facilitate a higher sell on price therefore validating that scheme...... this will still not make Kirkby the ideal or only solution for EFC. Just ideal for those selling and old pal Tesco, and the other retail magnates who incidently complete the loop back to EFC’s mystical backers. Moving to Kirkby to bolster their profit will still not make it the accessible stadium promised, nor improve its design quality beyond mediocre negating any potential increased attractiveness to Evertonians who at the end of the day are the people required to fill the thing to yield the tenuous profits forecasted. As far as clubs not making money, you are right most generally operate very close or even beyond that line, but most of the clubs you mention have at least actively engineered ways of increasing their turnovers to the max, and often well beyond ours. Most have also secured far greater investment, some without the luxury of new stadia so often stated as pre-requisite on here. Some have even achieved that feat more than once, and of course some have royally cocked up. We have simply done very little except sell all our assets and farmed out our operations, and have rode Moyes’ successes on a budget. Thank god for Moyes!
80 Posted 14/09/2008 at 12:05:24
The great imponderables that promoted Kirkby to the masses at the vote will still be promoted to any future businessman investor. Yes, even the most successful get suckered on a regular basis. Shiny, new, Glossy images.....Club on the up and up, Knowsley Council pumping it to the max, Tesco and other Retail giants lauding it to one and all etc. All with the best young manager in the league. All sells itself as it did last year! But, as I said, it still doesn’t resolve the same genuine concerns that culminated in last weeks EGM. There are real solutions to our problems, and with proper backing to the tune of Indian multi-billionaires they are easily resolveable without resorting to simply maximising the outgoing incumbent’s personal profits by dressing up the real sow’s ear which is DK.
81 Posted 14/09/2008 at 12:30:24
No, the truth is that however SUPPOSEDLY rich the clubs become only one club can win the league and three will have to be relegated ? that?s until they pull up the drawbridge as the have just done in Rugby League.
I repeat: Be careful what you wish for!
82 Posted 14/09/2008 at 12:51:19
Stick to your main argument: Kirkby will be a financial disaster for the club, no one will invest in us, and Bill will lose his shirt. At least this is not self-contradictory garbage.
83 Posted 14/09/2008 at 12:54:00
What are you wishing for...... the potential to never ever compete again? What if the bubble never bursts in the way you forecast? Isn’t BK wishing for the billionaire too?
84 Posted 14/09/2008 at 12:58:02
Not all business men have Phds or are geniuses sorry to inform you. You should perhaps stick to the merits of Kirkby that YOU voted for and somehow think still applies if your continued support is anything to go by. Gillette and Hicks can’t make a profit beyond financing their loan and have invested millions. So have various other businessmen throughout the league.... doesn’t make them more or less stupid than me, you or anybody. It’s yet another none-issue to detract from the main kirkby related concerns that created the need for an EGM last week and which saw the vast majority of shareholders vote to drop Kirkby without recourse. The pantomime has been seen through!
85 Posted 14/09/2008 at 13:21:28
Is this what you REALLY believe Tom? Everton FC is not that complicated an investment, but an investor will think, after a year of debate, that Kirkby will make a good return on investment when (being "a pantomime") it obviously won’t? What planet are you living on Tom?
Actually I am very happy to stick to the merits of Kirkby. I am indeed urging repeatedly that you do so too. I respect the argument that Kirkby will be a financial mistake, and the possibility worries me too (although it is not ultimately what I believe).
So why do you keep changing the topic to whether Bill Kenwright will make a killing or not, and have to conjure up completely ridiculous idiot investors to fulfill your personal vendettas against Kenwright? PLEASE - let’s stick to the merits of Kirkby and leave Bill out of it!
86 Posted 14/09/2008 at 14:28:38
You continual denial of this simple financial fact is somewhat surprising, Neil, given your relatively sensible arguments in support of Destination Kirkby.
87 Posted 14/09/2008 at 15:35:37
You say: "Everton will benefit to the tune of something like £50M in kind from the project going ahead". Plus Kirkby will generate (you said it not me) "immeasurable goodwill". Far from denying this - I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. This is of course is why I support moving to Kirkby!!!
So of course I agree that the value of Bill’s shares will go up with Kirkby. He has just done something that (as it seems you fully agree) has fundamentally increased the value of Everton as a business. He is like a man who has moved his company’s manufacturing to a better site that will make more money.
So you explain to me Michael (or anyone else for that matter): how CAN Kirkby be such a disaster for the club if it instantly creates a £50M hike in value and immeasurable goodwill?
Or try this one: can you explain to me how redeveloping GP (which you prefer to Kirkby) would instantly generate £50M and immeasurable goodwill? Or indeed generate anything close to the added value of Kirkby?
Or perhaps you can tell me which other option might conceivably give us an instant £50M hike in value and immeasurable goodwill??
It seems you guys are determined to believe that circles are squares and black is white. Two things are possible. Kirkby is a disaster for Everton, the value of the shares go down. Kirkby is good for Everton, the value of the shares go up. Unless you believe (like Tom) that there are complete idiots out there, it cannot be the case that Kirkby is a predictable disaster and the value of the shares go up. It is logically impossible.
88 Posted 15/09/2008 at 05:17:45
You miss the whole point of the argument. Its called motive for the move and who will benefit.
Assuming the value of the shares are boosted by moving to Kirkby, Bill and the other Directors say we have done our bit, and sell to an inward investor at an increased share value (as Michael said, £50m plus goodwill)
Bill and any other Director moves on, leave the club in Kirkby. He has made a substantial profit on his shares.
Which you then have to question the motive behind the refusal to sell shares, in fact the whole motive behind Kirkby as a choice for EFC!
And that's the point Neil, in whose benefit is the move being made. That's why there is the question of a vested interest in making Kirkby happen.
Just because the value of the shares increase does not necessarily mean its a good thing for the club or supporters. For a team playing in Kirkby it's still a hell of a risk when the only guaranteed winners will be the Directors.
89 Posted 15/09/2008 at 06:49:49
I?ve tried to explain to you before, the rest of it is a timing thing. Now who?s being dense, eh?
I efully xpect Kenwright and the others to sell in the short term ON THE PROMISE OF KIRKBY.... well BEFORE anyone knows its financial viability... well BEFORE it is even built, in all probability. That is when BK and his chorts will make their killing.
Stop conflating issues and events that are likely to be separated by MANY YEARS. Try for a moment to deal with the simple clarity of this imminent prospect.
The current plan is for Bill Kenwright and cohorts to sell up and reap their profit on the back of Tesco?s munificence well before the ultimate realization of Destination Kirkby.
90 Posted 15/09/2008 at 07:14:24
These issues are not seperate at all when it comes to share price.
Consider the following example: I suggest that you buy shares in a company who makes wrapping paper, and sell them in February.
My reasoning: the company will sell most of it’s stock in the run up to Christmas. The value of the shares will therefore peak in that period. In the new year demand will drop, and therefore so will the share price.
Obviously, this advice is terrible. Everybody already knows that the business will peak in the short term, but go down after that, so the share price of the company already reflects such movement.
In Everton’s case, moving to Kirkby (with any short term benefits) will only increase the value of the company if it is a lasting benefit. If the company is expected to fall apart, the share price will fall.
More than than, even if there is just a risk, the share price will fall. Investors hate risk.
91 Posted 15/09/2008 at 07:37:22
ED, your reply is wrong just look at today?s market, companies with clear solid foundations and products lead the FT. Lehman in the USA are filing for bankruptcy, they have failed with speculation but have strong assets, sadly their assets are in commercial land and this sector in the USA is stagnant. Commercial prudence is what will aid most companies but like you say there will always be exceptions to the rule.
92 Posted 15/09/2008 at 08:02:40
With respect to share valuations / company valuations, both yourself and Simon are correct to say that in a depressed or seasonal market share values fluctuate, however that it the case realistically for a publically listed company, its not the case for a private company where a handful of people have the bulk of the shares and they aren’t traded on any stock exchange.
They are valued against assets, cashflow and potential, which in the case of the Premier league is undoubtedly high. So "normal" business rules of share trading on a Stock exchange don’t apply. If it was a publically listed company we would be having a different conversation.
93 Posted 15/09/2008 at 08:25:24
Not sure if you missed my point.
Firstly, share prices of seasonal businesses DON’T fluctuate according to the season. That’s the point - the price only changes when expectations for the company changes. Seasonal movements are expected and therefore don’t effect share price.
Secondly, we are talking about company valuations. Efficiencies of private and public company markets have nothing to do with valuations.
As you quite correctly say, companies are valued on assets and / or future expected cash flows (note: not necessarily both). This is where the Kirkby argument breaks down - you are arguing that the future expected cash flows are lower, yet the value of the company will rise.
94 Posted 15/09/2008 at 08:37:31
Ok, that’s technically wrong, private companies tend to have a slightly lower valuation. But it’s not relevant so please ignore it.
I thought I’d correct my own mistake to avoid sidetracking in something pointless.
95 Posted 15/09/2008 at 11:36:27
Point is, EFC in moving to Kirkby is a speculative move that will increase the shareholder value for a number of indivuals by probably a significant number. As Michael correctly points out, the chances are that BK and others will sell on the sizzle of what Kirkby could be, not on what it actually delivers. Pretty much Bly Sky.
Just WHAT we are left with should they suceed in selling out beforehand (BK?s stated intent) is risk.
Thats why, I say the Drectors are speculating with the future of EFC and to them should the decision that Kirkby gets a go ahead, they will make a considerable amount of cash.
So, as said, thats why to the main shareholders will not sell before a decision is made on Kirkby, thats why there is a question as to where the benefits to the club, its supporters and our future it. Mind you, the key shareholders won?t have that worry. We will.
96 Posted 15/09/2008 at 10:24:13
The problem you have is similar to the clubs. You have been offered a solution, and you are trying fit the problem to it. That’s not just dense it’s farcical!
Over 12 months ago, yes voters rallied behind the party-line and just quoted all the brochure’s sensationalised one-liners to support their decision. One by one as their validity evaporated into the Kirkby air, we got "well at least this or that still applies" until eventually all the promises were broken...... to the point we now should go to Kirkby because it will apparently increase our share-value. Why didn’t you just say that last August to put all our minds at rest? Personally as a shareholder I have seen the share value fluctuate from a high of £10k each pre-rights issue down to £3,500 each and now something over £1200 I believe...... so forgive me for not getting too excited at BK’s potential windfall. Bottom line is...... as I said in the previous posts: will the increase in share value make Kirkby the most accessible stadium in the country? Will it solve the calamitous transport strategy? Will it make it a stadium of any real note? Will it make the out of town option work when so many others have failed miserably prompting the biggest stadium building boom in the US to reverse the folly? Will it alter the change of perception of the club that could damage it in terms of loss of city-based identity and historical character of its famous home? Kirkby is the project that shuns comparison at every turn. The real deal of the century would invite it!
97 Posted 15/09/2008 at 13:03:23
Your request early on regarding meeting for a drink? Well I drink in Orry?s most home games so pop in and the first is on me, I will next be up North on the 27th the day we get our first home win. COYB
98 Posted 15/09/2008 at 14:20:55
The point I was trying to make, rather awkwardly I admit is regardless of whether or not DK helps secure a new investor, will the likes of you and I and the vast majority of blues be able to get to the match easily and/or more readily than now? Even if you haven’t read the transport strategy you will know that that is not possible for any peripheral site with no mass transit provision..... in fact if you have read it and its previous incarnations you will will see the consultants have been struggling with this to the extent that even the capacity had to be reduced to even get remotely near making the model work, so onerous were the defficiencies of this location. So we can forget KW’s wild demand for 75k potential. That’s not crystal ball stuff just basic logistics..... and just another facet of the back to front process to date of trying to make our probelms fit DK since this has been all about EFC enabling Tesco to get a shopping development over 5 times bigger than planning legislation allows on what is a strategic site for them and not what is best for our club. As said before, BK’s other mysterious backers then complete the old pal loop of interested parties who may be set to benefit from this development. This can never be the best starting point in the decision process of solving EFC’s stadium problems. The rosey picture painted at the time of the vote now holds no substance to the point now that we are being sold it as the only way to secure billionaire backers..... thus giving our aforementioned old pals act the pay off and developments they want. Ask yourself this, why can’t BK give the club away for a similar amount he paid to agent Johnson..... wouldn’t that attract the billionaires regardless of the state of our stadium? I suppose that depends on whether or not he owns the shares! Anyway must dash....
Might be able to take you up on that offer. You can bring the loudhaler, so we can conduct our show of hands ;)