A Plan B

3 makes the most sense, as savings on interest payments probably outweigh profits from 1 or 2 in the long-term.

The difficulty here is that nobody trusts the leadership at the club to make the best of such a fan investment.

4. Give it to Bill as a bribe to fuck off.

£15m seems like a very short term fix to my mind.

An extra tier means reduced revenue while the building work is carried out = bad.

So servicing the debt seems the best way forward.

Other options......errr......

It's a very logical solution short term. But, if none of the board are willing to invest any money in the club, they would be even less likely to accept a dilution in their shareholding without any incentive....

I personally would use any monies raised to take back control of any outsourced operations we currently having including corporate hospitality, pitchside advertising, sales and catering.

Hopefully Everton have learned something from Sodexho and the others while they have been making money off our overcrowded back. This should see us comfortably add a few million per year in revenue.

If there was anything left after that I'd be looking at getting Finch Farm back under our control ? not an easy task considering the terms we signed up for, I believe.

Good article, Jay. I don't think £15 million will buy enough nor pay enough wages to improve us much.

I agree with James on point two. So this leaves us the practical but rather dull option three.

If Stephen Kenny's idea is feasible I'd go for that. However, the self-serving board will never sanction anything that dilutes their power.

I am coming round to the view that circumstances are dire enough for a mass short-term boycott and I never thought I'd say that. Kenwright needs the public humiliation of being shown to be mistrusted and loathed.

None of the above.

1: It would take more than £15M to improve the first team. Left winger, right winger and a striker. That is before we even think about a back-up left back.

2: Knowing the current boards planning and design past we would end up spending £15M on a tent with Ronald McDonald selling Big Macs on matchday.

3: It is the board's job to meet the financial requirements of the running of the club. With the total lack of cash from all 3 official board directors into the running of the club, why should fans fund/cover up their self-made mess?

The idea of a share issue should be seen as papering over the cracks that would appear again.

The only way forward for this club is for the debt to become unserviceable and the banks/institutions that we owe money to step in and force through a change of ownership.

The current 3 official main shareholders either do not have the money or the willing to finance this club.

They should ask themselves why they are still involved in this enterprise and should be ashamed of the fiasco that they find themselves associated with.

£15 million would not even paper over the cracks. What's to stop one of Bill's chronies or the like buying the issue on his behalf?

I wouldn't trust this lot to sell the Big Issue, never mind shares in the club.

Kirk (#8) + generally...

...if #3 involved a share issue to pay off debts (thus diluting the existing shareholders holdings) but allowing a shareholders trust ownership of a portion of the Club (similar to Arsenal) ? would this not be the best way to find investment and pay off debts? (granted, small investment).

That would give supporters a voice on the board and the running of the Club, and also a sense of ownership and allow us an additional source of income to finance our debts.

I know, I know ? I will now be pounced on for that thought: "It will never happen/small fry etc etc." ? I'm not necessarily disputing that but, in hopefully a 'financial fair play' sense, we live within our means currently... so, as Jay said, reducing our debt burden is still a step forward, even if a small one?

Dave (#9)

My point would be to ensure that the shares are issued to the supporters trust, so that real fans have the chance to buy them.

I know it's pie-in-the-sky stuff ? I appreciate that ? but I want to see us succeed doing things the Everton way. I don't want us to be a City or Chelsea, or even one of the Clubs who have found a 'wealthy backer' and it's not worked out so well!

I want us to be Everton ? do it properly and do it ourselves... or at least try.

Richard ? Every Evertonian would love that, mate, and I admire your vision. But whilst this shower are in charge, we don't stand a dogs. He won't even allow an AGM for Christ's sake.

If footy goes on it's arse and SKY pull the plug, then yes, we stand a chance. But, whilst the game is awash with billions generated by wealthy whore masters, we don't. Here's to the dream, though, mate.

Buy Goodison Park from the banks and let the club pay a peppercorn rent for it's use. The devil sat on my shoulder would ban that bastard Kenshite from it though for life or make him and his cronies pay an exorbitant season ticket fee to see if the blue rinsed bastard really was a blue enough to pay his own way.

Gavin,

I bet were in a fair bit deeper than £15m for Goodison?

Actually Stephen,
Gav's suggestion is very valid as the books, I believe, show a 15 million mortgage on GP and the last valuation was 13 million so buy GP and a two bob winger with the balance.

Interest payments could go into the supporters trust fund if that was the way the investment went and could be used for ground improvements!!

Jay

I personally would be minded to try and increase the clubs revenue should this highly unlikely scenario ever play out.

Taking Goodison out of the banks hand doesn't really alter the present situation much IMO.

What is the club likely to be paying in interest on these £13m mortgages?

With £15m to spend surely a scheme that could generate more than said interest could be found?

Stephen the biggest portion of loans beyond the Bear Stearns fiasco is probably the ground itself, removing that and the opportunity to look to remortgage it again and putting the ground into the ownership of the trust would see it redeveloped. The redevelopment would create more seats and potentially more income as a result. Later phases on how to reinvest those funds would need to be decided but a suggestion I would make is in additional facilities such as a hotel or leisure facility bearing the Everton Trust branding, all profits besides operational costs be ploughed back into the ground and any developments.

Maybe with the millstone/excuse of the ground removed buyers would be willing to look at the club. Shareholders in the trust may even face a future buyout of the club looking to buy the ground and pay them dividends on their shareholding.

I like the idea of a rights issue as it will make fans put their money where their mouths are. Option 3 is also the best one. A fans group where the fans are shareholders is more meaningful than a group of customers on facebook.

Waste of time Jay, share options only give you a one-off injection of cash and don?t answer your long term P&L. Unless you can guarantee the share option would yield us a massive injection and the general value of the club remained unharmed, then it's just fantasy.

We can?t even get adults to pay adult entrance prices at Everton ? what hope have we got of fans putting in a minimum £1k each for no return? I wouldn?t entertain this for the simple fact my £1k would be going straight in to the players' pockets and on that business model (football in general), I would rather spend my cash in other areas. Not easy being a fantasy chairman, is it Jay!! COYB

A rights issue is 1 for 1.

So you are saying that the club is only worth £15 million??

I think the current value of the shares issue (read from another article) is £45 million so that's the actual amount of money it would raise.

And it doesn't necessarily have to mean a dilution of the current boards majority holdings, they just have to put their hands in their pockets and buy enough shares to maintain the majority.

Which is why it'll never happen.

No. 2 is the best option, no need to pay off the boards debts as it's a manageable £4.5 million a year.

Increased revenue from No.2 will provide long term benefits and can be used to buy players and to pay off debt in the future.

The new tier could be started immediately after the last home game in May and be easily finished by Christmas.

We currently pay £4.5 million in interest servicing our debt. I imagine if we paid off a chunk of debt, we would still be paying in excess of £2.5 million a year in debt. However if we put an extra tier on the Park End, this could potentially bring in over £3 million a year based on 5,000 seats all taken at £30 each. If we were to spend this income on reducing the debt, it would have more effect than paying off a £15 million chunk, so for this reason I would choose the redevelopment of the Park End.

Who would buy the new shares and why? They don't pay anything and the club as a business is stagnant.

Are you expecting 1000 fans to stump up £1500 each for a share?

Eric #18 a rights issue is not necessarily a 1 for 1.

It can be a 3 for 10 or 1 for 4 or whatever capital you hope to raise in proprion to the existing value of "the company".

I'd change our name to Sheffield Wednesday and give Bryan Robson a few bob to act as " business consultant".

Of course we'd better move quick before the overrated, injury prone, dullard ends up in clink.

Footballers - the only occupation that makes MPs look straight - why do we bother?

Steve #22

I think you could find 1000 fans to stump up £1500... if it was actually an option available to them, via a supporters trust, for a slice/voice/influence (no matter how small) in improving our situation - I would for one! (so only 999 to find!)

Also why just develop the Park End - we need a whole stadium solution, the Park End would just be spending good money for a short term gain to them spend it again further down the line as part of a bigger project - be that Goodison or elsewhere.

Richard, Tom Hughes and Trevor Skempton have both shown redeveloping Goodison is possible given the existing footprint but the will just isn't there, look at the Park End development balls up for their latest hare brained idea. They need to employee people like Trevor and not some two bob half wits who miss the glaringly obvious time after time when it comes to projects.

Goodison has the footprint and an existing proven transport infrastructure to work.

Sorry Richard (#25) duff keyboard syndrome on my part that was 10,000 fans chipping in £1500 to get to the £15M mark not 1,000... only 9,998 to go... I'd have one as well! Problem is ensuring that there is a market for all of the shares as a partial takeup would be a nightmare!. Do we have the balance of the 10,000 in the fanbase willing and able to find the notes for that?

Gavin,

The will isn't there because the stadium, even upgraded, is still in Walton. It's a non-starter for commercial revenue generation so it's matchday-only revenues that would uplift. They might cover the extra cost of doing one stand at a time, but you'd still be looking at near a decade until any extra revenue would filter into the coffers. Goodison is a non-starter for anything other than long-term stagnation.

Steve elevate your thinking a little even a matchgoing 40000 once every two weeks is still a valuable market.

Add to that commercial activities like hotel, restaurant, catering and functions together with retail outlets all built around a designer (granted 1/4 of the) ground.

And if the football quarter idea takes root and the RS develop Stanley Park which looks more likely by the day the commercial opportunity that is Walton would only be bettered by the City centre.

As Gavin said the transport and general infrastructure is already there from a century of serving football and residents.

You never know the Echo might relocate its offices there at exorbitant rent to be close to Bill

Steve, explain to all of us where Stanley Park is and where Anfield is and when the yanks over the road finally decide if it's stay or new stadium my money on either of those two locations. The location argument is utter bollocks in relation to Walton ? if it wasn't, Mordor Mk 2 would have been somewhere else.

Explain to me, Gavin, the difference in merchandising revenue streams between EFC and LFC. Also the difference between fanbase size, especially out-of-towners, between the two clubs.

If after explaining that you think your comprison still holds water....go back and look at it again. Also ask yourself the question of how many top Gigs that Anfield has hosted over the past few years.

LFC aren't interested in the corporate venue/hospitality revenue market. They cant be or they wouldn't even think of Stanley Park....either that or they consider the money going in to the stadium for regeneration of the area to be more necessary than greater commercial opportunity.

We cant afford to ignore the non-matchday revenue like them. Goodison is in the wrong place for that.....it really is that simple. A rennovated Goodison will never be enough to make us competetive with the top clubs in the Prem financially....trying for it shows a lack of ambition from anyone suggesting it.

Jay,

Sorry pal was on a smart phone and only saw Gavins piece. 40000 in matchday revenue means, what, an extra couple of million in ticketing and a mill or so on matchday retail?. Lets say £3.5mn for a yardstick....thats for the uplift from about 35k average to about 40k average attendances.

Cash loss this season was £5mn so before we start we know that its not enough. A ticket price hike in conjunction with this increase in capacity might get us to break even. That just keeps us where we are though and will be shot to bits the next time an Arteta needs a few extra thousand reasons a week to stay with us.

Its just not enough mate and focusing effort and energy in this direction is just a waste.

Football Quarter?. Years after that idea was first mooted I've still not heard a clear idea of who the anticipated target market for that ever was. You ever visit the National Football Museum Jay?. If not dont worry, until they made it free, no bugger else did either!. Its now been packed up and will be stuck in some convention centre in Manchester....as if anyone cares!.

Banking our future on an attraction with so hazy a popular appeal that no-one is interested in stumping up the money just for the feasibility study wouldn't just be stupid.....its dangerous and stupid!.

Steve, a pretty myopic view there thinking along those lines your point of revenue streams in respect to location would be what exactly? Everton has documented high walk up fanbase so where besides it's current location would suit you? Come on Steve is Crosby attractive enough or maybe a nice suburb elsewhere? You alienate the walkup or put it somewhere without a proven transport infrastructure then what are you left with besides DK mark 2?

Look at every single premiership ground and what clubs have relocated to new ones over the last ten or twenty years. Look at those who have made ground improvements and if their matchday income as you can find published by Deloitte has increased as a result, when the club is utterly potless and clueless a gimme being shunned through a blinkered view of Walton isn't the right answer.

You seem to think revenue is all about hosting concerts, thats just one avenue but surrounding residents would have an input to that capability, strangely it doesn't stop other locations, the caveat if you don't try you'll never know or let's just give up because the RS don't do it?

The RS have waiting lists for match day activities and a completely different business model, Everton, unless it significantly rebuilds it's brand through on field success needs to build non matchday income streams.

Holding enough water for you yet Steve?

No water, Gavin, none whatsoever, you have just dodged the question.

At least you are accepting the fact that the RS aren't bothered by commercial events/hospitality revenue. That's your question from your earlier reply answered at any rate.

Of course you have to site the ground somewhere accessible. Of course you have to take steps not to alienate the fanbase by sticking the thing in a pub carpark 20 miles out of town. Is that hard to deliver... yes. That doesn't make an inadequate solution, like redevelopment, any better though as, no matter what, it's still inadequate.

We have all the vitriol in the fanbase now because we have no money. If Kenwright et al had committed all the sins they have, but, were able to chuck £20M at Moyes every summer for new signings do you think there would be a People's Group? No, because the massed ranks would be happy enough that they could see names against the little Everton graphic on Sky Sports and would be happy. You know that as well as I do!

We pay for stand-by-stand upgrade of Goodison and we get no new money into the team until the last stand is finished and paid off. When's that then? 2020... later? Unless you want to hinge the club's whole future on a roll of the FQ dice and our shiny new Park End hotel? Come off it. So continued stagnation and no new names on the little graphic on Sky Sports.

Bottom line... we need Events/Function non-football revenue because we don't have the fanbase or ticket pricing options of the current 6 clubs above us. We CANNOT compete with them on matchday revenue alone... this is starkly obvious isn't it? We have to have a stadium attractive enough to the commercial market in terms of facilities and location to compete for that business.

If we don't have that we might as well continue with Elstone's 'buy-cheap/sell-high' selling survival-only strategy as nothing else will stop us having to do it in the medium to long term regardless.

Steve, it is all about affordability.

If we had a marketing budget of a billion we could create a worlwide brand very quickly ? just look at City's profile now that they have become hot news.

But the question was: What could we do with £15 million which, in the absence of any contribution from the board is about all that could be raised... and even that is dubious because of the board's reluctance to have a rights issue.

A £15 million injection into the Park End would see an 8,500 increase in capacity and would incorporate improved facilities and commercial opportunities.

Granted it does not give us a shiny new ground but do you think we'll see that anytime soon with BK and his cronies?

Remember the Chinese proverb that says "the path to a 1000-mile journey starts with the frst step".

Steve #31 "Banking our future on an attraction with so hazy a popular appeal that no-one is interested in stumping up the money just for the feasibility study wouldn't just be stupid.....its dangerous and stupid!. "

Isn't that Desperation Kirkby you just described???

Absolutely, Jay, I see what you are asking. If it was via a donation or any other avenue, short of debt, I'd agree, £15M spent on the ground is worth many times that spent in the playing squad or on club debt.

My point is that you are proposing a dilution of the shareholding without there being anything down the track to raise the price back up again. That's usually what you want to do with a stock offering like you propose.

Essentially it becomes almost free money as, with the dilution, you make the shares themselves cheaper individually. The club's value has not arbitrarily increased so, where you had 35,000 shares, for a full offering, worth £1,500 quid each, you now have 70,000 worth somewhat less each... maybe as little as half. Now, if you have a stadium project on the horizon, investors see an opportunity to buy low and see a large increase in the value of the club (by virtue of the nice new facilities and opportunities for renewed on/off pitch success).

The shares are attractive and there is a very limited number available so there will be demand... demand drives the price up... shares become worth more and everyone who bought at the reduced price makes a tidy sum. The club nets the proceeds of the share sell-off AND gets the shareprice re-established high for another offering at a later time able to realise a decent yield again. As the little wooden bloke said ? "That's the way to do it."

Making the share offering without the incentive of the profits and the way to recover the share value means that you are reliant on 'emotional' investors and the diluted price stays diluted limiting future options for further offerings.

Afraid this will just be a plaster over the main problem at Everton and the main problem with English football in general. Far too much of the revenue at the club (about 65% I believe) is going straight to the players and this percentage has been increasing steadily over the years, not just at Everton but pretty much every prem club.

By generating more revenue (expanding the stadium) or reducing costs (paying off debt and hence reducing interest expense) you are just creating extra cash flow which will just go to agents and players at some point. Many will argue that that is the only way to improve the squad and hence results and hence league position and hence generate more revenue etc. However, this extra revenue will again just go on increased wages, sign on fees and bonuses to the.......... players.

Its a viscious circle and I had hoped that the financial crisis would have brought clubs to their senses but with the likes of Citeh and Chelski still paying players £100k+ a week just to sit on the bench, sadly this does not look like being resolved anytime soon.

There is nothing the Everton board can do alone, this has to be a done by all clubs.

Anyway, if all I can do is choose one of the above, then I would expand/improve the stadium. (I don't believe it is that easy to pay off some of the debts as they have prepayment penalties in-built).

Steve the methodology of ALL projects that the club has embarked upon have been fatally flawed, they have arrived at solutions financially beneficial to the shareholders as an exit strategy instead of ensuring a sound business model.

In essence trying to do a lot of things badly rather than selecting easy wins and using that as momentum to drive forward changes. I wholly stand by an upgraded GP being a sound model to follow as it would be piecemeal at not on a yearly basis with peaks and troughs; peaks being outgoing to accomodate the capital expenditure of building works and troughs where the income generation begins and investment can be ploughed back into the playing squad. After all if you go shit or bust (as was the plan) on building a new shiny stadium (well a flat pack shed) with no guarantee you could fill it and the burden of debt surrounding the total build you're unlikely to ever have the extra funds for your squad - the actual thing people pay to go and see.

A bigger picture and broader remit needs to be encompassed accepting yoou can't fix the club's woes overnight with one plan but rather many smaller plans with a medium and long term startegy. Goodsion Park already exists, the transport infrastructure already exists, the audience already exists in situ, three pretty big ticks. Address shortcomings; restricted views and little if any facilities for non match day revenue (how many days a year is the old girl earning brass?) invest in smaller projects in parallel to address these basics.

The reciprocation is revenue, the leverage of which could be reinvested into the squad and make a better "product" or brand and attarct more punters a cyclical upward benefit to your business. Your medium term plan is then reviewed; invest in the squad or have you maximised your capcty and generating waiting lists, some simple business analysis calculation to evaluate which is giving you the best return of investment and you begin another round of projects, additional seating, additional facilities,, more non match day investment opportunities.

At all points of the process each and every single project (if ran properly with a modicum of governance) can be halted, parked or fast tracked to meet the needs pertinent for that particular snapshot in time.

Pretty much basic stuff.

Or, you could decide a new stadium is required, not necessarily the wrong idea but your initial checklist needs to include, funding (we have none), accessibility, suitability (match and non match day as any venue should wring every last penny it can). Unfortunately, unless the current board suddenly finally accept their positions untenable and leave this isn't going to happen. We are where we are, stagnation of doing nothing right here, right now is wrong, the gap is growing on a day by day basis it needs addressing right now.

The changes you are talking about dont fix the problems though Gavin... so why flog a dead horse? Why expend ANY energy and resource on a scheme that will not do more to advance us than Elstones selling-club masterstroke?

You talk of peaks and troughs. High capital spend on a stand followed by a reaping of the rewards from that for reinvestment. Sorry but the additional revenue from one stand will need to be pushed into building the next or it's going to be years between stand improvements and, all the while, we still miss out on the events/function revenue because organisers won't look beyond the city centre towards Walton while sober.

It's not enough, Gavin. We are at the point where, if we want to start competing at the top level, then it is shit or bust. We will not address the gap you talk of in Walton ? it's as simple as that. We stay with mediocrity, in Goodison, and try and get the best out of make and mends solutions. You know what I'll settle for that because I love the old girl too... even if we are a perennial mid-table club who, on occasions, rushes up the table and upsets the apple carts... so be it. I don't hold the club to ransom with silverware the price for my support!.

All those who demand ambition, success, trophies and all the rest of it though can't have it both ways. We either move and fight for commercial opportunity and revenue at any cost... or wallow, happily, in our nostalgia. No middle ground.

Steve, the problem of an en masse solution by moving to a state-of-the-art arena ? such as KD could have and should have been ? is as likely as BK ever "finding investment" or any of the board spending 1p at the club. Other clubs have developed their stadiums to make a gradual improvement of income. Unless we get an extremely rich philanthropic owner, it just isn't going to happen. Walton won't kill Everton: it hasn't for 130 years ? or the RS for that matter, it's about what the team does on the park and for us bums on seats and trying to explore non-match revenue.

The building of a stand between close seasons then ploughing straight into the next build is a little folly if you ask me as the increased seating needs to be seen to be filled first and foremost which will take some time on take up without a decent enough team on display. As an example the Park End could hold at least double if not more than it's current capacity; but, without a waiting list, we can't guarantee that take-up but that should be addressed by offering those seats to existing customers with restricted views and those seats not sold as season tickets due to being restricted could be offered as available premium seating to match goers reluctant to pay money for poor available seats.

Phasing the building gives you an opportunity to ensure the take-up is there; why build another stand up if you can't fill what you have? Build the team at a staggered parallel or in between to keep the uptake and footfall growing, once you hit another measurable flag of waiting list for additional seats then you choose to build, else keep investing in the team or other avenues to generate non-match income, retail, conference, accomodation, leisure.

Chasing commercial opportunity at any cost could have found the club dying on its backside in Kirkby as the only benefits appeared to be for the major shareholders as an exit strategy plus whatever retail property scam Green and Earl had in mind.

Gavin there was no commercial opportunity to be had in Kirkby....even at the outset when the trams were going to go direct to the ground, it was free and there were page 3 models ushering you to your bloody seat that was still the big problem with that deal. DK was nothing to do with commerical opportunity.

Questions about projected takeup just means you scale your new stadium size appropriately in the first place. I agree with your caution and the point you make about empty stands bringing nothing in is well made. All that means though is that non-matchday revenue is all the more critical to chase.

There is also the phenomenon of new-stadium effect. See the trials that Brighton&Hove have gone through getting to their new ground, but, they are there now and they have sold, last I heard, 16000 season tickets out of a total of about 22k in the new Amex Stadium.

In our case you wonder how many transient matchday fans are put off with the knowledge they are likely to get stuck behind a bloody great post if they do go on a saturday and sack the idea off before they start. We need to wipe that impression from those fans minds and encourage them to come out on the weekend. Thats were we will get the footfall from. The fans are there they just need a reason to be switched-on to coming to the match again.

I cant argue the points that staying in Walton wont kill us and that finding the solution to the stadium move will be an extremely tall order. In fairness though I never said we'd die in Walton....I said we cant mount a sustainable challenge for top-6 placing in Walton. To many on this site that seems to equate to the same thing though so I guess it depends on individual perspective.

I think a perfect site, close to the city centre,on the river, perfect for tourism (hotel) and events/conference business already exists. It should even be available as the developer who currently owns the 20 odd acres earmarked for a residential scheme has had to sit on it for years as the housing market in Liverpool wont support the development.

Further you look at a stadium like Eastlands, built for £130-140mn, and Cardiff City's new (albeit basic) ground built for less than £50mn and you can see that we dont need Bill Gates to come out as a die hard blue to build a ground if we accept that we aren't going to build the Emirates. It takes some creativity and the leadership to, probably, sell some big names to part fund the build.

Thinking small hasn't worked. Bringing in cheap players and selling them on at a profit and the tweaking-round-the-edges like additional seating in the Park End will see us survive indefinitely. They wont deliver the sustained revenues to the manager to compete in the transfer market every window though. As long as thats the main thing that fans whinge about it we'll need a better solution.

Happy to agree to disagree with you before we start repeating ourselves at each other though Gav!.