The Blue Union Tightrope

Peter, you make some very good points.

With regards to your last paragraph, it seems as if you have done what many others have also done. The actual members of the Blue Union is a small handful of people; their supporters don't speak for them or on their behalf.

I do think that is part of their problem at times though, their supporters, at times seem misguided; often by themselves.

The people at the head of the Blue Union actually know their stuff and can reason with fans. The actions of their supporters are often the main thing letting them down; unfortunately.

Very interesting article Peter, I did notice that you were "shouted down" on the other thread, it's seems those who were shouting bullshit should have done as much research as you before opening their mouths.

The one thing I would say is that I don't think Blue Union have the support you credit them with, considering it's an amalgam of a few groups (all of which I'm sure, want the best for the club) I'm not sure that they've won over that many hearts and minds just yet.

Michael Kenrick asked you to qualify your comments on the other thread, and this article does that in full, it will be interesting to read the forthcoming comments no doubt.

I agree with the content of the article and the mistake the Blue Union made was letting Mr Dave Kelly and his followers "highjack" the running of the movement. Yes, we do need change at the club but it has to be done in a commensense and professional manner.

One has only to look at Aston Villa, the team Everton played on Saturday; they also had a chairman that was totally disliked by the fans. Once he was removed and a takeover took place, they have not progressed as much as the fans would like.

Peter, an excellent article.

For me the BU is a single issue organisation with no credible strategy of how the club can be guided out of its current mess. It represents a small minority of the diaspora of Everton fans. Many of its followers are shrill, intolerant and incapable of sensible debate on the issues. The worst thing is that they demand that which they have no right at all to demand.

Why should Kenwright stand down, why should a legally constituted board hand over control to an interim board that would sell their shares for them, no give them away. It would be laughable if it weren't so serious because I believe that this vociferous minority of supporters is contributes significantly to the forces dragging the club down and bringing it into disrepute.

There has to be change but is has to be with consultation not confrontation.

A very well thought out article Peter.

I certainly don't believe Blue Union have betrayed our club in any way. They have drawn attention to the fact that there needs to be change and have at least put some pressure on a man who has been sitting at the helm far too comfortably for far too long.

Whether they are going about it the right way, and whether their proposal is viable and the correct way forward for the club remains to be seen. I hope you don't get shouted down for this article as I think it raises some important points which warrant further (grown up) discussion.

Credit must go to BU for being pro-active and actually doing something to try and stop the rot which is spreading throughout our club. I support their efforts because I believe in their ultimate goal. But I hope that they are not so blinkered that they can't be open to the suggestions that there may be better ways of doing things or that just maybe, what they are proposing is simply not realistic for what ever reason.

You seem pretty clued up Peter, so as well as pointing out where they are going wrong, perhaps you could suggest an alternative plan.

These guys are the best voice we have at the moment though and I hope they gain momentum and support. I also hope that their modus operandi is such that it offers the very best chance of success.

Good post, Peter, and thank you for reinforcing the validity of some of the statements you made on the other thread.

I think in the end you will be doing the Blue Union a good service, even though it may not seem like that. Mis-steps by fan groups who set up to oppose the bullshit emanating from L4 are nothing new, and the Blue Union have made plenty that run the gamut from embarrassing (the clown & the cake), and ill-advised (Howard Kendall) to complete nonsense (the escrow clause and selling for the debt).

You have also effectively challenged their central idea of negotiating a sale on behalf of the reluctant shareholders.

I think they did very well to raise the ante and ask some key questions; they have a number of significant triumphs under their belt, and I would include the infamous Kenwright interview on that list, but I fear increasingly that they are running out of steam and have very little left in the tank.

Let's see what happens a week on Wednesday when they hold their third public meeting at The Casa. Perhaps your contribution to the discussion can help then to focus a little better on what can really be achieved.

Given the enforced change of the Articles of Association and the "looming iceberg" of administration, given the decade of paucity of lack of leadership from BK and his board, I genuinely wonder if the shareholders will have an opportunity to hold them responsible when their shares become worthless?

If the club is sold as you described, Peter, I agree that they would have some recourse of action but would they when it goes pop? The current situation is untenable, and has been for many many years, and the fact that hasn't changed for many many years and only became worse has heightened the factions. Read these pages and you can still see really poor incomprehensible blinkered support of a regime out of its depth. You'll also see bunkered views which have made their collective minds up and will no longer change.

Regarding the divide-and-conquer mentality, remind yourself of a key moment in the club's history, the whole DK debacle, and who is ultimately responsible for that divide and conquer.

The BU is far from perfect but what alternative right now is there ? another handful of interested parties (as believable as FSF again), the rumoured sale price which will never be achieved and cant possibly be tagged as beneficial to the club ? only to its majority shareholders?

You say BU don't have a concrete solution. Is it their role to solve Bill Kenwright's problems? Everton's current predicament? Who got Everton in this hole in the first place?

Peter, how much time are you prepared to give Bill Kenwright and hope that everything will be alright? Should've kept Gaddafi in power since there was no proper solution. Boy are those Libyans regretting it now heh?

First of all Peter may I congratulate you on the time and effort you?ve placed on articulating your premise that the Blue Union haven?t a clue what they?re talking about.

Your first few paragraphs I completely agree with; probably like yourself I also welcomed Kenwright?s takeover from Johnson, let?s be honest we all felt enough was enough but of course nobody realised at the time that TBH only possessed enough money to buy Peter Johnson?s shares and of course we all believed one of our own when he said he?d be searching for new investment, 24/7; some still believe it twelve years later but most, as you explain, have had enough after witnessing failure after failure; failing to deliver a penny of investment, two failed stadiums and lie upon lie upon lie.

You?ve said it yourself, ?we face stagnation? and, for many, the time has come to stop believing the person who has delivered this stagnation and look for a viable alternative. As your article progresses, however, I find myself agreeing with you less and less as you express your own prejudiced and, I have to say, rather naive interpretations relating to statements made by the Blue Union. Naive maybe too harsh a word, perhaps you?re just attempting to discredit and defame the Blue Union out of some sheer frustration that you?re experiencing for some reason at the moment?

Your initial good start begins to fade when you begin to mix your own negative interpretation with the Blue Union?s solutions to the problem being experienced by Everton. You include your own interpretation within quotation marks which suggests this is what the Blue Union are saying when they?re clearly not, here?s an example:

?The BU proposal is for Kenwright to step aside and for a third party to be nominated to negotiate the sale of the club. This third party is then supposed to offer the club for sale at a price far lower than its true value? The buyer is then supposed to put the cost of a stadium in escrow for five years until a stadium is built.?

Nobody is proposing that the club is sold for less than its true value. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what its true value is? Make sure when calculating this figure you take into account the business generates little profit [EBITDA], has few remaining assets, any of which are mortgaged, has sold the ability to generate greater income to outsourcing partners, due to a lack of available funding to address these areas in the same manner as all other premiership clubs, has a dilapidated and unsuitable stadium that requires significant investment and has the unenviable distinction of having the smallest squad in the Premier League which contains aging players which again will require significant investment. I know Richard Larnder has explored this problem in a recent article on why the club hasn?t been sold and, knowing what he does for a living, I think he knows what he?s talking about.

As for mocking the placement of any proposed new investment in escrow or a trust for five years, your alternative appears to be giving this money to the current board as a profit on their £22m investment?

Why shouldn?t this money be used for the betterment of the club instead of going into the bank accounts of people who have decimated the club through their lack of everything? I?m so glad that you?ve studied the Blue Union newsletter; perhaps you missed the comparison between the performance of the Spurs directors, who have grown their business, and that of the Everton directors, who have done the complete opposite. Where does the assumption originate from that states when you buy shares and run a company into the ground you are automatically entitled to a profit?

It's utter nonsense; if you?ve invested, developed and improved a business, like the Spurs directors, then yes, of course you?re entitled to reap the rewards of your endeavours. If you?ve done the opposite, like Everton?s, you should expect the opposite in return; to me, that?s a reasonable statement.

I wish you?d stop repeating the nonsense that specialists, in selling companies, are brought in by courts. Many companies use specialists to sell their businesses; specialists such as Barclays Capital, Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Investec or Inner Circle Sports, a company which you need to look at here, http://www.innercirclesports.com/, examine their transaction history and tell me that all those mergers and acquisitions were ordered by courts. On the other hand, perhaps maybe you?d like to stick with Keith Harris?

You?re right when you say Bill Kenwright has legal responsibilities, he has responsibilities under the 2006 Companies Act to act in the best interest of the business, that as a director of the business he must ensure all deals are concluded in the best interests of the business and not himself and that the business must be seen as a distinct entity separate from the directors and shareholders. Now, having said all that and knowing his past performance in selling the club, including when he attempted to sell to a guy in a one bedroom flat, can you understand the prudence of engaging a company who actually knows what they?re doing and can demonstrate a successful track record?

Where do you come up with this £150m -£200m or more to be placed in escrow? The Kirkby stadium cost was £78m, KEIOC have had a highly experienced stadium redevelopment company conduct a site visit to Goodison, after which they drew up proposals for the redevelopment of the Park End which included a second tier, corporate facilities and a hotel and conference centre which would have cost less than £20m.

You?re coming up with wild and highly inflated figures to ridicule the Blue Union proposal which is clearly limited to the money the current directors think they?re entitled to for doing less than nothing. The escrow clause is simply to ensure the same mistake isn?t made twice, see TBH, it?s to ensure the prospective buyers aren't just full of promises.

The amount, for me, is nowhere where you?ve attempted to place it, Peter, and it's the amount the directors think they're entitled to get for doing less than nothing, the business is now in a worse state than it was when they took it over and no amount of persuasion from someone looking to keep their job will convince nobody otherwise.

The Blue Union proposal is very simple; if a suitable new owner can be found who has both money and suitable plans to rectify the years of incompetence then that money should go to the business and not those responsible for the catastrophe that Evertonians are now witnessing. You appear to want to reward failure most others appear to want to embrace the opportunity for success.

You also appear to want to brush things under the carpet. Yes, I'd have to agree, the campaign by the Blue Union could become very damaging to the directors; yes, sponsors may be scared away; yes, creditors may become jitterier... but how this is conceivable with the credit rating Everton has is unimaginable to be honest.

Here?s a wild thought, maybe the board should consider embracing the proposal being made by the Blue Union instead of their mock outrage when inventing accusations of financial impropriety; an accusation that has never been levied by the Blue Union to my knowledge but one that the CEO persistently states even to each individual shareholder at a recent meeting; anyone would think that they are becoming paranoid for some reason!

Maybe, Peter, the best thing for me to do is meet you before the game on Saturday and you can come and have a cup of tea with these Blue Union lunatics. You can explain your misgivings and they can explain their beliefs. If you can?t make it before the game, maybe you can meet me for a beer after the game and I?ll introduce you to Evertonians from all walks of life that have been going to Goodison for up to sixty years, ordinary fans and shareholders who almost unanimously believe the same as the majority on ToffeeWeb, that enough is enough and that it is time for change ? a change that starts at the top and begins by challenging the methods that have been used to find a new owner.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Well said Colin, I believe that in tennis terms, while it might not be game set and match, more like, advantage Fitzpatrick.

I love a grown-up debate first thing in the morning! Good article Peter, great effort in putting your points across, but I agree with Derek (447), I think Colin's response more than answers your misgivings.

One thing I would like either Peter or Colin to clarify, and it is something that Colin touched upon in his response... in the original post, Peter gave the impression (by his use of quote marks), that within a Blue Union newsletter, it was clearly stated that

'The BU proposal is for Kenwright to step aside and for a third party to be nominated to negotiate the sale of the club. This third party is then supposed to offer the club for sale at a price far lower than its true value? The buyer is then supposed to put the cost of a stadium in escrow for five years until a stadium is built.'

I have tried to find this on the Blue Union website but cannot. Was this actually a quote copy and pasted from the newsletter, or is this Peter's incorrect paraphrasing?

Thanks.

Actually, I have just re-read the original post and realised that what Peter was quoting was his own statement from a previous post of his, not the BU newsletter. Sorry. Still, as I mentioned before, I think Colin's post included a more than adequate response to that point.

Sorry, one other thing... Whilst I am a big supporter of The Blue Union and what they are ultimately aiming to achieve, I do get frustrated at times with some of the, let's say, unprofessional posts that appear on their Facebook page. For example, I really don't think posting 'funny' pictures of BK's face super imposed onto a tramp holding a sigh saying "Will Groundshare For Money" does their cause any good. I truely believe that they have enough ammuniation against BK and the current board to not need to resort to those sort of levels.

Yes well said Colin, I wouls like to add one thing to it if I may!
Peter wrote ?creditors might be entitled to call in some if not all of their loans and put the club into administration?. Surely if this happens it would be nothing to do with any protest movement it would be solely down to the board for taking these ill-advised loans out in the 1st place.

I find it laughable that people want a completely workable alternative before you can critisise this regime.

Supporters of Kenwright want a business plan, a solution to all the stadium issues and a penny by penny breakdown of how another party would solve all the debt problems.

If this fan's group did exist, they would be in demand across the globe for their expertise of rescuing businesses in distress. They could charge millions for a consultation.

It is easy to pick holes in any argument against this board or manager, we could argue with each other on who should play centre half this week for days on end.

The facts remain we cannot afford any new players, our business plan is to sell any young talent to appease the banks. There are no new plans in place to improve the ground or corporate revenues. We have to go to shady off-shore lenders for short term loans, paying high interest rates, and many more poor business decisions - too many to list.

We need to sell to someone, but I don't believe this board have this club's best interests at heart. I believe they want as much profit as possible from any sale, and this is ruining our chances of someone rescuing Everton. They may take us into administration by holding out for millions more than the club is worth.

So unless Bill does sell for say £80m, I will support anyone who keeps the spotlight on him and his cronies. I sincerely hope to proved wrong, and the club is sold for the good of future generations.

To me Peter its all about you and the axe that you obviously have to grind with the Blue Union and your own personal agenda. Do you propose any viable alternative to what Blue Union have to offer, Everton is dying on its feet due to not just a starvation of investment but a famine that has lasted for the past 2-3 years. Many, many people Peter have voted with their feet, they are sick to their stomach of Kenwright and his cronies Earl and Green. Next season I would have you a wager that season ticket sales will be further down, tell me in one sentence how do 'you' propose to arrest our decline ???????

People don't seem to be able to distinguish between 'supporters of the current regime' and supporters of the blue union'. In reality, of 36000, I'd imagine about 3000 are staunchly pro blue union and 3000 are staunchly pro Bill. In the middle are probably the relatively quiet ~ 30000 who recognise the need for change, but not as described by the blue union. Peter, to me sounds the the latter. The problem is, that a lot of blue union supporters don't know (and evidently don't care) what it is that they are getting their weight behind. Comments like 'anybody who highlights Kenwrights faults gets my support' are really pretty ignorant. I'd love to meet some non blue-union members, but supporters, after the game and see exactly what it is that they are supporting.

Congratulations Peter for attempting to present a moderated view of the current controversies. There is, I believe, a difference in expressing scepticism of the BU's aims and being an outright BK supporter. You are right to draw attention to Dave Kelly's statements as the movement can only gather momentum and credibility if what it wants to achieve stands up to scrutiny.

You are ofcourse correct that there is nothing legally that the supporter base can do to Kenwright to sell his shares; he does have a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders and creditors of the company to ensure they seek the maximum value for the business.

However I think this misses the point. The BU's aim of seeking an independent board calls in to question BK's competency in carrying out his responsibilities. Our finances show that there is not yet a sustainable plan to generate revenues to meet our on going financial commitments.

Without drawing attention to the parlous state of the club, the danger is that it may be too late before BK can be held accountable legally; we may be in administration and in the Championship.

As far selling the club for its debt, the point is that no one can, with any confidence, say that the club is worth 150m or for that matter even 45m, the size of its debt. Its a buyers market and unfortunately, for EFC, currently there are none.

An independent board made up of people with the experience in finding investors or buyers might be able to change that. Even if they dont, they should contain individuals with experience in business turn-around and developing sustainable plans.

It maybe that in the long term EFC is not sold, survives in the EPL and develops a business model similar to Ajax - ie bringing on young talent and selling at a profit. However, after the numerous cock ups by the current regime (Gosling, Nyarko etc) no one would trust this board to use the funds wisely.

This board has demonstrated significant incompetency over the years and in that respect, the BU's aim of having an independent board is something to support.

"The reality is that Kenwright has a legal responsibility to Everton shareholders ? not fans"
Surely, the vast majority of people holding Everton shares are fans
I, personally, don't know a single Everton shareholder who bought their share for any reason other than love of Everton, certainly not in the hopes or expectation of a financial profit

The only thing detrimental to the club is Kenwright and the Blue Union have at least had the nerve to highlight this!

Potential investitors wont give a shit about what the fans think they will make an investment only if the club is for sale (which it is clearly not) AND for a well researched price. Given the years of mismanagement / losses the price is obviously going to be less than you are quoting.

Pete why dont we all do nothing about it and continue to clap BK when his mug appears on the screen because lets face it this mediocre shit we are served up is something to look forward to for the next 12 years!

We need to remember that the BU are offering a proposal. They don't have the authority to insist on a 3rd party being brought in to help the sale, but it is their opinion that this would help to get the ball rolling.
Also, appointing this 3rd party would be no different from appointing an estate agent to sell your house. It would still need the approval of the board - it couldn't be done without this - but it would be a start in marketing the club a bit more aggressively.
I don't find any such proposals unreasonable, as they are what they are - proposals. I don't know too much about the ins and outs of these escrow proposals, but again they are just ideas. In order to get the media attention they require to make such proposals, they have to try alternative tactics, because the club is an enormous PR machine with the media on their side. So they have used clowns, they have posted a video link on you tube etc. This is no different from Dads for Justice chaining themselves to a building somewhere. It gets people talking about them - which is the name of the game. Whether you find it ridiculous or not, it has brought media attention to the way EFC is being run - and this is the main goal the BU wished to achieve when they set up.

Kenwright has, according to him, been trying to sell the club for many many years without success. Apparently, they have never taken a penny out of the club and all directors work for the good of the club and not reward.

Therefore, why not put the sale in to hands of independent 3rd party to sell? The only reason to refuse is because, as Richard Lardner said, the price. The owners, whoever they are, want to try and get as much money as possible.

Good to see a sensible, grown-up debate amongst adults which is in stark contrast to the level of debate on the average football forum.

Peter, I'm not so sure that anyone is suggesting that the club be sold at a level below it's 'fair value' as Colin's post explains above. The question is, what would a purchaser be buying exactly, other than the right to incur future losses, a weakened balance sheet and a significant level of capital outlay following acquisition?

When an asset has remained unsold for such a long time, there is a clear different between the want of the vendor and the needs of the acquirer? Is there any other way to look at it?

The markets refer to this phenomenon as the 'bid-ask spread' ie, the difference between what someone is willing to pay versus what someone wants to sell at. A widening bid-ask spread is an indication of a lack of liquidity. At the moment, we have the most illiquid asset in the world: Everton shares.

As for the third party being appointed to sell the club, I'm afraid this is common practice when selling a private company. An investment bank or a corporate finance house use their contacts in the market to locate a buyer. Obviously this is done within the parameters outlined by the buyer. The way you ensure the achievement of market value is by incentivising the agent by offering a percentage of the sale price.

In reality, we will never know the answer to a lot of our questions unless there is more transparency in the process

Peter. We know where you stand regarding the BU, so let's for a moment disregard them entirely - they don't and have never existed.
The second paragraph of your article clearly infers you have lost faith in the Board.
So can I ask you what you would do to expedite " new leadership " stop " stagnation " get " fresh inspiration " and " significant new investment "

Couple of typos above, should have read:
"Obviously this is done within the parameters outlined by the vendor."

Whilst I do understand the argument put forward by Peter, I think in many ways it re-states the "be careful what you wish for" approach taken by those who see change as too risky; however, poor the current regime, it's better than the alternative.

Granted I am generalising with the above, but I came to the conclusion a long time ago (and subsequent events have only re-affirmed for me) that it's Kenwright and his Board who are walking the tightrope; with to one side, administration waiting beneath, whilst to the other a long drawn out demise into the Championship.

It is BK who risks "hurting the Club he loves" (sic) with the stagnation he has engendered at seemingly every level within the Club. We are now no better off than we were when Moyes turned up and by most measures we are actually in a much worse position. Performances and tactics on the pitch are down to Moyes, but for the rest it's the best supporter in the world who is wholly to blame.

The BU may not be perfect, but they are the only effective voice disaffected fans have. So, as long as they continue to protest peacefully and get our plight out into the media, they remain for me one of the few ways in which we can stay on said tightrope and reached the other end without falling off (end of dubious metaphor !).

I read your post Peter and thought you had explained the problem with the Blue Union very well. That was until I read Colin?s response which dissects just about every point you make and for me makes far more sense than the trust you are placing in Kenwright and his board.

The Blue Union may not have all the answers but they have what appears to be a possible solution to the problem of the sale and, if Richard Larnder is to be believed, it is one that is widely used anyway. I always remember Bill?s story of when he bought Everton, he said he had a phone call from the bank to tell him that his bid was successful, does that mean Johnson used a bank to conduct the sale of Everton back in 1999?

For me, the Blue Union are beginning to make sense, it seems that the club are now having to respond to what the Blue Union are doing.

Maybe the best thing for you to do is meet Colin and let him take you to meet these Blue Union lads and see if there's any common ground.

Agree that the business generates little profit [EBITDA], but has few remaining assets? The squad is the main asset that the club holds. Plus many businesses look to keep core activities in house but outsource all non-core business - the decision is getting your strategic mix right. Equally, the stakeholders in the club will want return to equity, and may prefer stagnation than agreeing to anything that weakens the value of their assets. This can continue for years by developing assets and selling them on for significant profit i.e players.

It will be a commercial decision that leads to the sale of our club and not an emotional one. That is where BK is most culpable with his "I remember Dave Hickson scoring in the Gwladys Street" twaddle. But also I think the BU is also culpable in expecting any asset-holder to sell below the value he or she is advised the asset is worth.

Therefore, if the BU continues to look at different investment models that make the club an attractive commercial proposition, they will be doing the club and supporters an enormous service.

Another thing to remember is that this is not a personal vendetta against Kenwright. But, as the public figurehead of the board, he is the natural reference point for any protests etc. In my opinion, it is the whole of the board that need to take a long hard look at themselves, not just Kenwright. If the BU could make this clear, that they are not just against Kenwright but the whole board, it may well make some of the naysayers a bit more sympathetic, as some people still go along with Kenwright being a blue, he's one of us etc. For many, it's a choice of either Kenwright's way or the BU's way, and some people are understandably uncomfortable with a hostile campaign against a fellow blue in Kenwright.
Maybe the BU, as part of their campaign, can start putting pressure on the 'adviser' Green, Earl, our very own billionaire Lord Grantchester etc. What exactly are their roles? What have they done for Everton FC? What are they willing to do in the future? An open letter would be good to all board members, from the BU, stating that if the current board are not part of the solution, then they are part of the problem.
I think a campaign should also be built around 'Name Your Price'. Again, to all board members, not just Kenwright. After all, you can't sell anything without naming your price.

Colin, et al, The quote you refer to, if you re-read the article, is me quoting an earlier post that was challenged on its accuracy. I make it very clear where I am actually quoting the BU newsletter and where i am quoting Dave Kelly. I want to be clear that I applaud in principle the BU and KEIOC's pro-active efforts to effect change. I'm not ridiculing BU. I am not a knee jerk supporter of the Kenwright "regime" but it is ludicrous to just demonize a man whose business is stagnating for all kinds of reasons, many of them beyond his control. BU is demanding he do things he is legally forbidden to do. It makes no sense. It's not helpful. As for the cost of a stadium, you know that £78M is not going to get you much of a stadium. Spurs new stadium is projected at £400M, Birmingham's £300M although that is a larger complex than a stadium. The Ettihad cost £112M ten years ago and took another £22M to upgrade before City moved in. As for the rest, I can't address what BU mean, only what they say. Look, I believe in protest and action and expressing our views, even our rage, but the best thing we can do as fans right now is to support the team, go the matches, buy merchandise, buy the sponsors' shit and support the club's efforts to find investment, not go bleating to the FA or the government or sponsors or potential investors or generating an atmosphere of doom. BU stalwarts have to be careful not to hate Kenwright more than they love Everton.

Peter
Is the Board legally forbidden to create funds by offering a rights issue or are they just protecting the value of their existing shares by not doing so?

OK Peter so lets stop bleating and - as we already are doing - fully support the team. Lets buy all the merchandise and go to the matches.
At what point do we stop.
The board have been telling us they've been trying to find a buyer since time began, so far, apparently, unsuccessful.
When, in your opinion, will you say enough is enough ???
How much longer do you think things can continue ? Another year, another 5 years ?
When do you think we should do/suggest things to make the board sell ??
If we listen to you it will come to a point when the board will be forced to sell by the bank or we slowly subside into the lower leagues.
Sometimes in life Peter you have to get off your fat arse and actually do something.
It's ok you telling us all to maintain the status quo but what will you be saying when we truly are well deep in the shit.
Rather than tell the BU where they are going wrong I suggest you ask the Board for a meeting and tell them where they are going wrong. I'm sure they will entertain you.

That last paragraph by John Keating @ 531 sums it up.
I'm sure you will be of the same opinion Peter when we go into administration/relegation (delete as appropriate). Because that's where we're heading.
The Ostrich may bury it's head in the sand but it won't stop the Lion biting it on the arse (old scouse proverb).

Peter, don?t want to be pedantic about the use of quotation marks but to be honest you don?t make it clear hence the reason why people are pointing it out.

You?ve been told on at least two occasions on this thread that what the Blue Union are asking for isn?t illegal and is used by many businesses. I?ve provided you with a list and a link to such companies and somebody who works in the M&A field has told you likewise but still you persist, I could say prefer to wallow, in your own ignorance, why?

The stadium issue is a complex one and I?m not quoting a figure from WCEC just for the sake of it. If a prospective buyer looks at Everton and asks what plans are there for a new stadium? The answer will be err err well none actually. Everton and Liverpool conducted an extensive search of 35 sites throughout Liverpool and concluded that none were suitable, here?s a link to them:

http://www.keioc.net/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=144&cntnt01returnid=85

The sites Everton has spoken about recently are going nowhere. Edge Lane has gone, Speke has major problems for its planning applicant and doesn?t include a stadium anyway and Stonebridge Cross, notwithstanding the gross unsuitability of the site, will never come to fruition because of its close proximity to Kirkby and the planned retail application that will be vigorously objected to by the neighbouring council.

Now it?s possible that a mega rich, money no object, person will buy Everton and that would possibly open up new opportunities but as that situation has only happened twice in the premiership the chances are the prospective owner will be someone with a business brain and sufficient resources to invest money into the team and the infrastructure which will eventually yield a return on their investment. It simply doesn't work if you just buy the shares, sit there and then expect a return.

Where is the only site that the council have officially said they?re willing to help Everton on an enabling basis? What development plan fits with their strategic regeneration framework and is part of a greater development that will attract government funding?

These are all the things that need to be taken into consideration; the sort of things that Everton?s board and their ?advisors? thought they could ignore when they couldn?t and it cost them dearly.Is it too much to hope that it will be a case of once bitten twice shy?

You don?t see the wider picture Peter, that?s why I offered to meet you and take you to meet people who can explain the thinking behind what the Blue Union are doing; it?s a lot more joined up than you give them credit for. What time do you normally get to the game?

First off, the intelligent and civil discourse on this thread (so far, anyway!) is a credit to those involved and to TW, so thank you.

Secondly, on the legal question of selling the club below the market value as perceived by shareholders, that would only come in to play in an outright takeover.

As was the case with True Blue Holdings 12 years ago, a prospective buyer need only purchase the shares held by Kenwright, Woods and Earl to assume majority control of the Club. As some posters have alluded to above, the way EFC is heading, they may not have a choice but to sell at break even or for a loss. Those are the simple rules of an investment gone bad.

And it's there where the energies of the Blue Union, as a supporters group, will have the most effect ? not on the validity or workability of their demands/proposals but in the pressure they will bring to bear (with increasing support from the silent majority if things continue to go sour, I might add) to force the Board into selling up before everything comes crashing down.

Peter Johnson ultimately sought an escape at break even (at £830 a share, if I recall correctly, a temporary devaluation of the remaining outstanding shares) and Kenwright et al might well have to do the same. It doesn't necessarily have to involve the shares of the rest of the minority shareholders.

I am not even going to try and enter this debate as there are far more informed people than me commenting!

I simply echo Lyndon's sentiment in that great to see for once both sides being sensibly and articulately debated without descending into venomous tirade and unacceptance of different opinions. Recently that has been turning me away from this site but good to see sensible and reasoned discussion taking place.

We are all Evertonians and all want what is best for the club.

Peter

Excellent post, I agree with all of your points. Usually anti BU posts are usually villified but this time has produced a good reasonable debate on both sides.

Sadly I cannot see any attraction for an investor to buy Everton, the only way this would be viable is if the City Council built a joint stadium. I see that Liverpools new owners have decided to upgrade rather than build a new stadium.

I am afraid that todays mercenary footballers are sucking the lifeblood out of clubs. I know people will say its the clubs fault for paying unsustainable wages, and thats true but I think most clubs are in a catch 22 situation. That they will be critisized if they dont pay what a player wants ie Pienaar, then if they do pay them what they want then some fans will complain about the board lacking ambition.

Ref the BU position on bringing in professionals to sell EFC, replacing BK and I assume the rest of the Board and current CEO in this task.

I guess I'm asking this of Colin or BU members. It's genuinely not pro or anti anything or anyone, but a real question I just cannot get my head around.

I can see that BU believe the current Board have failed to find a buyer / agree a deal to sell EFC and given the descent into serious financial woes, impacting as it does so badly on the teams ability to compete, BU believe others can do better. Whilst musing on this I'm taken to ask, well, why ?

If we take a mix of Colin's response to Peter, add a little of Richard L's comments re sale and finish off with Lyndons well timed contribution, plus a sprinkling of everyone else (ok, end of cake mix stuff!) you end up with, now what's the word, hmmmnnn, oh yeah, a NIGHTMARE.

I can see that BU will feel that they have progressed if the Chairman is removed from the scenario and the rest of the Board and I'm guessing BU want to see the CEO lose his job. But.....politics aside, what you're all telling us, repeatedly, is that EFC is about as attractive a purchase as RBS and Northern Rock on the day it all went belly up? Only EFC doesn't have, apparently, as good a chance of recovery as the greed-ridden banks because, unlike them, EFC isn't being paid for failure on the backs of ordinary people and ruined lives.....

Reading some clearly well thought through and well argued stuff on here and elsewhere like Vital Everton over the last few weeks, it feels impossible that a combination of Bill Gates, Steve Job (rip) Terry Leahy, Richard Branson and that kid who invented Facebook, could ever sell EFC given the disastrous state of the club.

You guys are telling us that, each year this mess goes on, we will continue to lose money and because Barclays won't lend us anymore, and worse actually insist on us repaying the filthy lucre, we will have to sell any half-decent player(s) we have, as we've sold off everything else. Now, reading the CEO's blog, even he sort of agrees with this assessment, though naturally he argues that, given the nonsense of no investment, the club has actually done jolly well to survive this long and still do a little loan type trading etc.

I often read articles on our dire state that start with "unless we find a multi billionaire sugar daddy or mommy....." and frankly this only makes it harder for me to understand why anyone other than a disgustingly rich new friend can ever think that buying EFC is worth doing? Your own assessments make an utterley depressing read and frankly it feels like between everyone the full picture has been exposed.

If BU were somehow successful in their wish to see Bill and the Board replaced as the people charged with saving us by finding a buyer, wouldn't they still face exactly the same nightmare you all go to such great pains to highlight ? Would they not still have to persuade a buyer not to worry that:

1. The stadium needs replacing at a likely cost of £150m to £300m or...

2. Goodison needs rebuilding at a cost of £100m plus, and over four years when income will nosedive...

3. There's a current running cost debt of around £45m that Barclays want settled... now would be nice...

4. The squad is ageing albeit with a couple of very useful youngsters, but we have no forwards to speak off and haven't bought a player for real money since the the last great depression.... so £60m needed over two years just to scratch the surface of the team rebuilding needed to make us truly competitive in a crazy market where players wages are totally out of control.....

5. Our commercial income is not great, and unlikely to get better quickly cos of all of the above.... and our wages are now 70% plus of income and on a steeply rising profile when other receipts are dropping due to, well, all of the above and the fact that we are about as good to watch as the most boring entertainment you can think of.....

6. We play our football in a city that has another team that carries the city's name and, no matter what despicable things they do, no matter how much they take the Council for fools and keep promising to regenerate a blighted community, no matter what their fans get up to, no matter what their players do to disgrace football, many bluenoses feel that the city council still only really wants them in the city and some think they see EFC as an irritating nuisance. EFC will pretty much always be second best in the minds of followers of the game except those that matter most, Evertonians, but it's a hard sell and no mistake to see the media and the Council recognise there are two teams in this city.

So, the longest question ever.....why will these sales people of god-like ability be able to gloss over all of the above and do more, anything even, than BK and the Board and the CEO to persuade non-filthy rich billionaires that it's worth buying EFC?

Just thought I'd ask like!

Cheers

Firstly, we need to consider what we want to achieve from this process and what we as fans are willing to do about it. Everybody wants the same goal and that is for EFC to take its place at the top table again, preferably with a new stadium to boast. What we want and what we can achieve are not in the hands of the fans but the majority shareholders; all we can do is lobby for a certain outcome and this is why I don?t agree with the current tactics of the BU.

The battle scars are deep for certain members of BU, especially with the DK venture and signs of PTSD are obvious in their aims to make BK responsible for past mistakes which is futile in my opinion but an understandable feeling all things considered. We can't change the past but we can influence the future and forcing BK to sell at any cost is very, very dangerous, because if the new owner doesn?t have the resources to invest other than the price of shares, like what has happened at many other club purchases, then we have the same problem but with a different person at the helm.

EFC will be around a lot longer than BK and that?s why they need to take away him as the issue because he is just part of the problem. BU and BK need to make peace with each other and move to the common goal/ground of getting EFC new owners ? it?s the only plausible way forward, and both sides need to swallow some pride to make this happen. Meeting up with BK and discussing DK, NTL, and KD has no positive outcome other than people saying ?I told you so?.

BU at the next public meeting should be looking at getting closer to the club and not marching on it. I?m still in the belief we already have a deal on the table subject to DD, EFC as a business has gone into lock-down regarding internal information and based on what I have heard from a Director of another PL team we have interested parties. I?m confident we are close; I?m just hoping whoever they are they add value, fingers crossed.

Mark,

Just a quick thought for you. What if the new buyers came in and cleared the debt? We currently lose £5 million p.a. according to the last set of accounts. Well we are paying £4.5 million p.a. in interest payments. If we had no debt, we would go from a club that loses money to a club that breaks even (in rough terms). With some better house-keeping, and getting the 3rd party agreements for catering, hospitality, kit deals etc back in-house, we could easily make a profit. (Remember these 3rd parties run such deals for us because there is money to be made. We need to maximise this income, instead of making a quick buck from such deals).

In terms of ground re-development, how much do you think it would cost to add a tier to the Park End? I would say £10 million max. If this added 3,000 to the gates, all paying £30 for 20 games a season, this would bring in £1.8 million, not including food, drinks, programs bought etc. The Park End investment alone would pay for itself within 3 to 4 years, certainly within 5 years.

We don't need a billionaire to come in and completely transform us. It would be nice, but it is unlikely. What is more likely is that we can get our house in order. That alone would make us a much more attractive asset.

Remember, Mark, we have high profile players representing Australia, USA, Russia etc as well as 3 players in the last England squad. We are also the 4th most successful club in England, playing in the most high profile league in the world. To a businessman wanting to expand his international profile, we would be well worth looking at if the price was right.

Sadly, I think I have highlighted the problem there...

Mark #691,

Nobody is suggesting that a sales advisor would be able to gloss over your points, which are all valid by the way.

A purchaser would take all of them into account when calculating value. This is clearly not being done by The Board at the moment, otherwise we would have been sold by now.

Alan. You have to remember that the BU is the result of the boards inadequacies it is not the cause.
Surely the onus should be on the Board to build bridges, to ensure supporters are part of the club.
The lies and deceits of the past affect the future.
A lot of what you say is correct, however, it would be very interesting to see what the outcome would be if you sent your piece to the Club rather than address your perceived shortcomings of the BU. There are polarisations in the support which will be difficult to rectify.
When I see concerned supporters asking legitimate questions to Kenwright and being called "Scallies", saying they were " laying in wait" of him and "abusing" him by fellow supporters I am extremely disappointed.
I see many people slagging off the BU, rightly or wrongly, but at least the BU are doing something, at least they are highlighting the horrendous situation the club are getting themselves into.
I very much doubt that the ego of Evertons greatest supporter would allow a move towards common ground

Mark, #691

I?d hate to say run that one by me again; it must qualify as the longest question in the fine history of Toffeeweb! :-)

I?m not sure why you?d expect a company such as Inner Circle Sports to ?gloss over? the problems at Everton, it?s obvious nobody can, and in any case any prospective buyer will conduct their own research in addition to due diligence after which irrespective of the asking price the amount willing to be offered will be placed on the table which will either be accepted or declined.

The valuation will take into consideration all of those points you make and then the sale will be concluded. The fact that is hasn?t, after all these years must tell you something.

The whole idea of appointing an outside agency is to ensure the sale is conducted in the best interests of the club and not in the best interests of the board of directors. I don?t think I have to go into the reasoning behind this, I?m certain most are aware that this board have taken decisions which were clearly in the best interests of the 76% shareholding that Bill Kenwright speaks on behalf of and not in the best interests of the club.

I don?t know where you get the idea that I want to see the CEO out of his job, I actually hold him in quite high regard in relation to others employed or recently employed at Everton. I may think he often talks a load of bollocks, and I?m certain that this is reciprocal, but that doesn?t mean he isn?t doing his job given the circumstances and limitations placed upon him.

I believe the Blue Union is aware of all the problems you highlight in your post and probably far more if the truth is known. Only time will tell if their concerns have any validity of course; the truth will out, as the saying goes.

Btw, Everton don?t owe Barclays £45m, most of that is owed to other institutions.

Alan #698

PTSD? Really? It wasn?t traumatic Alan, all felt it was a pleasure to do anything to stop the most disastrous decision by a board in the 134 year history of the club. I think your understanding of the Blue Union is on par with your understanding that Kirkby was a good idea. I can see your need to brush all this under the carpet but the seriousness of what Bill Kenwright attempted to do should never be dismissed.

Tbh I?ll be amazed if you don?t come over to me next Wednesday and say hello as, even though you?re in denial, you?re actually as much in agreement with many of the Blue Union concerns as I am!!

You?ve said it yourself, ?forcing BK to sell at any cost is very, very dangerous, because if the new owner doesn?t have the resources to invest other than the price of shares, like what has happened at many other club purchases, then we have the same problem but with a different person at the helm."

You?re also as fully aware as I am that the Blue Union can?t make BK sell the club; but as time goes on, and they continually fail to find a buyer, he may well take the highest offer he can; this was evident in the tale, from the man?s own lips, of the guy in the one bedroom flat who he was badgering to come over and sign the deal.

You also know TBH should never have been the owners after Johnson, because they had no money, but you appear to ignore what the Blue Union are actually saying Alan, it?s made clear on the back page of the October Newsletter; allow me:

?Our proposal is simple, our belief is that the sale process should be outsourced to professionals such as Barclays Capital, Investec or Inner Circle Sports who could identify and deliver the organisation who can best demonstrate the resources, ability and a genuine desire to take the club forward on both a commercial and football level in preference to any organisation that simply meets the asking price.?

It couldn?t be clearer, the proposal is designed to find the best owner for the club, and take it forward, and not just the party who makes the highest offer which will simply benefit the major shareholders whom Kenwright speaks for.

I know it?s anathema to you Alan but come on, admit it, I know you want to! lol

Joking aside, I completely agree with what you?re saying in paragraph three of your post, ?BU and BK need to make peace with each other and move to the common goal/ground of getting EFC new owners.? It?s obvious that if this doesn?t take place the outcome will be disastrous; the BU will become more militant and the board will exhibit greater intransigence. Bill Kenwright needs to realise and accept the motivation behind the protesters and attempt to reach an accord otherwise things will only get worse. As, no doubt, one of your heroes once said, ?To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.?

I?m reassured by your confidence that DD is being conducted; I hope you?re not asking me to watch this space!!

See you Wednesday night fella? ;-)

John, I have no fight with BU, they are all fans and we all want the same outcome, that is the main issue everybody agrees on so its a point to start on. BK and the board have collective control so no matter what you think about him that fact doesn't change, accept it and move on. In Northern Ireland we had to open up discussions with S.F IRA which must have been hard but we did and we now have some form of peace, I personally wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire but better people than I did and they proved to be correct. At some point the past is just what it is and we have to move on for the greater good of EFC, the blame game is futile bothways! but I understand why people think like that. Its time for all fans to come together and I want BU to use this at the public meeting, we all want the same conclusion. If they take this line the Board will have too respect it, confrontation such as a march may raise the public debate but it has limited scope and we ALL need to move on to the next level. The editor is correct above, BU next move is a defining one and I wish/ hope its inclusive as there is some very clever people behind BU that could be useful as part of a fans group.

Colin,

It,s all very well saying BK and the BU need to work together, as people have suggested on here, to find a new owner.

What if it is,nt his decision?

What if the decision on the sale price, is out of his hands?

Could it be that he may have got into bed early doors with the wrong people, and his hands are well and truly tied.

Could the ultimate decision be set in Monaco, or the Virgin isles?

And if so, should,nt the BU be targeting them as well or instead?

Just a thought.....

Robby #758

Could be, it could explain the reasons behind the somewhat strange decisions taken by this board but ultimately there's a ring of truth in what Alan is saying and we probably agree the hostilities won't bring about progress; only a genuinely contrite move by the board, one that in which they are sincere, will prevent further damage to the club, is my honest opinion.

On the other hand fans could just keep their mouths firmly shut and keep their noses out of what is none of their business because the board has an excellent track record of making terrific decisions that always benefit the club!!!

Colin,

I agree as regards Alan's opinion, and how you say "jaw, jaw" not "war war".

What I am saying is should the jaw, jaw be with Green and or Earl?

Or, if they won't jaw jaw... maybe War War?

Robby 758

I tend to agree that I think the major financial decisions are being made by others and not Kenwright.

Colin Fitzpatrick you say that TBH should not have been allowed to be the new owners. I dont believe there were any other bids on the table, so it was either TBH bought the club from Johnson or we would be stuck with him. Lets not forget he sold a player without informing the manager. Cant imagine Kenwright doing that, despite his mistakes.

As for handing over the process for the sale of the club to Barclays Capital, well I cant believe you are actually suggesting that we trust bankers to get the best deal for Everton football club. This group of people have brought Europe to its knees, you talk about Kenwrights lies, he is not in the same class as bankers when it comes to lies and awful business decisions. They are the most corrupt people on this earth, and Bob Diamond head of Barclays stated not so long ago that we should now stop blaming the bankers. Well Bob I would say that as well if I was pocketing £9 million bonus this year.

Strange you now agree that there should be a compromise between BU and Kenwright, after your group has vilified the guy for a couple of years. Not withstanding despite your criticsm he still agreed to meet you. Despite what you say the figures for your meetings and marches are very small and dont seem to be increasing. Mind whoever had the brainwave of having a guy in a clowns outfit carrying a cake, really stopped any credable belief in your movement.

Colin, we do all have common ground on this issue the clever thing is bringing it all together. If I?m honest the more I check up the more I become less supportive of the board. KD was always the missed opportunity, and being honest still, Kirkby just doesn?t bother me either way. The principle of having two major sponsors was the correct approach and it was all about location. The stadium was what it was average like most others but it met to our means with the current custodians and I would rather watch EFC in Kirkby than Speke Industrial Estate, but that?s just my opinion. My support for the board is failing because they could do some simple things to dampen the flames on this area and I would most defiantly act differently to my staff/shareholders/customers than they are at present. Good old Mr Churchill, good to see his dialogue can make the vaults of TW!

Brian, #849

Just because it was the only bid doesn't make it right, hence the need to have professionals scouring the world for the right prospective owners.

Your facetiousness doesn?t alter the fact that Bill Kenwright, after 12 years of trying, is patently unsuitable to conclude the sale and there is a real need for an alternative.

Mock all you like Brian but the clown attracted a lot of media attention, the sole purpose of a protest march.

Just to put you straight Brian, it's not my group, not my meetings and not my marches, like many I simply support them and I happen to think they're doing very well indeed.

Whilst you obviously have a problem with banks, I assume you don't use them in your everyday life, I'm glad to see you have no such objection to Inner Circle Sports; it's always a good idea to have a plan b!!

I'm agreeing with Alan because he has made a sensible post, an element of which I agree with. Intransigence and polarization aren't qualities that will heal the obvious rift between Evertonians.

Peter's post has created some great debate amongst Evertonians on here, wih people eloquently and intelligently making there contributions; looks like that's at an end ;-)

Alan #895

I?m with you 100% on the KD issue; for me Kirkby, Speke even Stonebridge Cross are all a waste of time. Stadia sites are complex issues, far beyond simply finding a suitably sized site.
Something clearly needs to happen between the club and the fans, the support for the BU has grown remarkably since that video footage and whilst I borrowed a Churchillian phrase on talking, the words, probably from both sides, mustn?t just be hollow gestures.
You?re not alone on becoming less supportive of the board; I have an amber and blue protest scarf ready for you!!

Robby #779

To be honest Robby I feel the whole Green situation is just embarrassing. There?s simply too much talk relating to his involvement with Everton for it to be just a relationship between two friends. For me when somebody tells you a lie what they?re really saying is you?re stupid enough to believe this.

Colin, I don?t wear football colours thankfully so you can keep your lovely scarf, my small u-turn is not in proportion to Mr Clegg yet but based on somebody I met recently and had exchanges with, well sort of???.. I think used would be a better word.
Brian, Barclays never took a penny from the government so how can you put them in that bracket? What everybody seems to forget is these bonus are taxed at 50% so we the state get half so not a bad deal is it? What about all those people that bought second properties that they couldn?t afford aren?t they just as guilty, the problem on the property Market was obvious in countries like Spain and USA no security was needed to offset the loan so if you faltered you retuned the keys to the bank and walked away. It was governments across the globe lack of legislation along with basic pure greed from every level which caused it, banks played their part of course but so did many others, don?t be blinkered it was all down to the boys in pinstripe, leave that to RS Len McCluskey and his mates.

One thought and a question to Alan Williams: Why should a march be considered or viewed as confrontational? If its peaceful and within the realms of the law and democracy, then, to me, the right to protest ? and, more importantly, the opportunity to highlight the continual failure of the current custodians to deliver on Everton ? should be embraced.

What is the alternative? The voice of the Echo, the spin of media pundits and those who question why 'plucky old Everton' and their fans should expect any more???

In response to Robby #779, if it's not 'jaw, jaw' then I would certainly feel that a trick such as those adopted by the Occupy movement wouldn't go amiss and a guerrilla-style protest / occupation of Topman in Church Street certainly wouldn't go un-noticed and have the media chin-wagging.

Alan, before you try to aportion blame to anyone else but the bankers and careless lenders who had their noses in the trough, I would suggest that you view and digest Charles Ferguson's exploration of the 2008 financial crisis. His documentary 'Inside-job' succintly unpicks the corporate, institutional and government greed and lust for power / wealth that created the legacy that we are all now living with.

Peter #943,

You read my mind......

Though I dare say, it would take some effort to out him... Slippery customer, if you know what I mean.

I've had enough... I am gonna ring Rocky!!!!

And by the way, Alan, it was your old friend David Cameron who recently vetoed the European Union's aims at tighter financial regulation to allow the City of London to continue to prosper using a financial model that has been proven to be clearly flawed.

Alan

You are quite right Barclays got nothing from the British government, but they got a huge bailout by the American government. They got more than any other US based bank.

Colin Fitzpatrick a bit rich you claiming my post put an end to the reasonable debate that has followed Peters original post, as you normally are the first to make foul and abusive comments. You say that even though the TBH bid was the only bid it doesnt make it right, so we should have done what precisely spent another decade looking for someone who you approve.

Obviously Keith Seymour has not been able to find an investor, and says the asking price is too high. Well why didnt he indicate that he had potential investors who would have bought the club if the price was lower. For what its worth I think Kenwright wants a buyer who will have very deep pockets and thinks as much of Everton as he does, personally I dont think that person exists.

Robby if you read Baz Rathbone's autobiography he talks about the use of Green's personal jet to finalise the Fellaini deal. Kenwright portray's Green as a friend of Everton - why would that be ?

Peter,

I wonder....

Also, Green brokered the Rooney transfer, fact.

Yet his agent was Stretford....its a mystery..

Brian #952

It?s Keith Harris of Seymour Pierce actually and if you look at the list of his supposed football clients, nearly all of which have been failures, you can begin to understand why he isn?t classed as a professional in the football world, Simon Jordan said of him, ?he delivers the square root of nothing, and David Gill described him as a self-serving publicity hound. He's waste of time and the evidence at Everton is there for all to see.

No I wouldn?t have done nothing, I would have advised them to employ some experts in the field, like I keep repeating, somebody of the calibre of Inner Circle Sports. That would have prevented the disaster that is Bill.

I only become abusive with fools as I don?t suffer them tbh. I think you?ll agree I?m being incredibly patient with you

Peter, read my post again, ?pure greed at every level? the banks are to blame of course but so are lots of politicians across the globe not just the banks. The Prime Minister protected the City for one simple reason, UK tax payments by financial services companies in 2010 was £53.4 billion! Which is 11.2% of total government tax receipts, from all taxes, for that year. The transaction tax would have put that at risk, cutting your nose off to spite your face just isn?t rational I?m afraid. If you want to change banking then look at hedge fund managers and private equity companies, they milk everything then just sell up and walk away. Whether you like the City or not we as an Island economy need that revenue, Brussels (Germans apart) hate the fact we have this infrastructure as it gives us a degree of independence, kicking the banks is lazy, we need them in all kinds of ways so its best to keep them and get the 50% tax rate out of them. Just for the record I don?t work in the banking sector, LOL.

Colin, he uses people too :-) if you get what I'm saying.

I'm sure he does Alan, doesn't everyone? What about a nice bobble hat, you'd cut a dash in one of them in the main stand!!

What do you reckon to this Kitbag story about them wanting to renegotiate existing contracts???

Gosh, this has been fun! Well actually it has been a good read and lacking in some of the bile and abuse that seems to accompany this type of thread and all the better for that until.... I got the slightest hint, just the merest whiff that Alan 960# was, even in a tiny way, trying to defend the Banks.

It will be a few decades before the tax on their bonus payments is equalled by the eye-watering payments made to keep them afloat by all of us. It will be the same amount of time before countless thousands, millions even, forgive them for destroying their lives at a time when the economic landscape suggested a steady if unspectacular potential for growth.

So many lives trashed. Jobs destroyed, good businesses wrecked because the very same greed ridden banking sector, having laughed quietly whilst saved from extinction after their own total failure, then refused to lend when many needed it most.

The purchase of second homes with no security was in fact only a relatively small part of the issue and I cannot compare that "greed" with the example served up by investment bankers. No, the starting point was reckless loaning of cash to families buying one home, often their first, mainly in the USA but fuelled by lax inter bank lending that was little more than a giant pyramid scheme, there was never a foundation to any of it and it is not the banks who will pay the long term price, it's ordinary working people. Sorry guys but didn't Barclays take a lot of cash in USA and I'd be surprised if they have been any more willing to lend to small firms until bribed by the desperate Condems.

Anyway, in terms of this debate I'd just say that I don't understand Barclays position. Yes, things are much tighter thanks to them and their disgusting brethren. But to strangle EFC now makes no sense. Yes, I can see the issue, that the bank has the same info as us and is worried that repayment will be tough. But it will be very much harder as a championship club, and frankly if relegation arrives in the next two years I'd wonder if Barclays would ever see their money back.

Releasing £5m new cash, and allowing sales income to be kept and used for purchases, may, just may, have steadied, even improved the outlook more than many suspect. It wouldn't change the main debate long term but it could have stopped the panic I think we are descending into....

Colin, I find it hard to see how BK will ever trust BU again after tapegate and being bellowed at through railings, not that in any way he faced OTT stuff. But I do think that wise council on both sides is needed to stop looking back and look forward and talk. Us sheep really want to see our gentle existence returned and if the proud people of NI can do it after a lifetime of hatred and death then somehow you think the blooming BU and the Board can sit down and give peace a chance? Or is that way too much to hope for?

Why not try it? Open letter to Bill, say sorry things have got so heated from both sides, but want the best for EFC and can we start again? I fear it won't happen but in truth how far will anyone get by a mantra based on what truly are some shocking cock ups and/or a defence of we are surviving in a harsh world blah blah. As BU say, time to change, but I'd add "time to talk".

Peter, you have shown in all of your previous posts on the subject that you have a particular axe to grind against the Blue Union and wish to discredit their aims with your own sensationalist misconceptions.

This post is no different with inaccuracies about being disappointed about success on the field, a court being required to order third party sales, creditors being entitled to call in loans and put the Club into administration, £150 to £200 million in escrow, damage to the Club, betrayal, etc.

It is such sensationalist scaremongering posts that get remembered and requoted ad nauseum and the factual rebuttals forgotten, you didn?t previously work for The Sun or The National Inquirer did you?

You claim that by selling the Club for the value of the reported debt of £45 million that this will be below the ?real market value? of the Club based on its assets and revenue? Well as many have pointed out the ?real market value? is what someone is prepared to pay for it but let?s have a look at figuring out what a ?real market value? might be.

As Richard Larnder pointed out there may be many ways to calculate a ?real market value? using a variety of methods but without using any accounting mumbo jumbo lets look at straight figures that every normal fan can relate to.

1. Share value ? When reporting a company?s value (eg. Microsoft is worth xxx million) it is based on the share value in the traded market. If someone were to buy up the shares of the Club at face value then they would be looking at around £42 million. This ?real market value? is less than the value of the reported debt of £45 million.

2. Asset value ? If the Club were to go bankrupt and all assets had to be sold off to pay creditors what would this ?real market value? of the Club be. Well the accounts show us that net liabilities are £33.6 million, that is, if everything the Club own was sold then they would still be in debt to the tune of £33.6 million. So £45 million to pay off the debt is better than this ?real market value? and would actually leave the Club as an asset to a new owner.

But we?re not going to go bankrupt are we you might say. Aren?t we?? If there is a deficit whereby the liabilities are greater than the assets then you can normally assume that the company is heading towards bankruptcy. In fact, a good definition of bankruptcy (not liquidation or administration) is when a company's liabilities outweigh its asset position.

3. Industry norms ? As you might consider the ?real market value? of your house by comparison to the actual selling price of others in the neighbourhood (didn?t our neighbours sell their club for the value of their debt by the way?) we could look at how other similar companies are sold. Companies in the leisure sector are often bought and sold by a multiple of the cash profit they generate, and in the UK at the moment multiples are dropping to near 6 times earnings in leisure.

So what is 6 times the cash profit the Club generate? The accounts show a ?cash profit? of -£5.4 million so 6 x -£5.4 million is MINUS £32 million.
But hang on, this cash profit includes the sale of assets (Bellefield and players). The accounts show that the Club incurred a record operating loss of £17.15million excluding the sale of assets which would produce a ?real market value? of the Club of MINUS £103 million.

Again a sale for £45 million is clearly a better proposition especially considering that the £17.15million is going to be a recurring loss and therefore increase the debt yearly (unless more players are sold).

So as you can see the Club really has no assets or revenue worthy of the name, so why is it that you and others consider that the current owners should be richly rewarded for asset stripping the Club and putting it into this precarious financial position? Are you bankers?

And when did you decide that £150 million is a fair ?real market value? of the club considering that you posted after the release of the accounts ?given the bleak picture painted in this analysis, doesn't the figure of £100-120 Million sale price of the club appear to (sic) high??

Colin, it could be the other way round. Maybe the potential buyer wants commercial freedom of the brand? I would if it was mine and I had money to invest. Me wearing a hat and scarf of the BU would seriously upset my fellow main stand patrons; anyway my son wears enough EFC for both of us 4 kits a year! He makes me laugh I dropped him at school this week with his EFC hat, gloves, lunch box, pen case, holdall and drinks bottle! Very funny to see in rural Essex, but when we change to Nike next season I will have to re-kit him again!! I?m up for tomorrow?s game and can?t wait.

Alan #101

I don?t think that?s the case this time, here?s the piece that was in the Times yesterday,

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78806142/Findel-Kitbag-Reports

You make a good point about Kitbag though, I have long thought that a prospective buyer, with great plans for Everton, would take a serious look at the Kitbag deal for the very reason you state. They?d also look at the Sodexo agreement in my opinion.

You go to the match with seven friends don?t you? I?ll do you a discount, can?t be fairer than that, you know it makes sense! lol

Eric Myles
You mention:
Share value ? you mention a company, like Microsoft, where there is a traded market. Fine, but then you try to measure the ?face value? of a private company, such as Everton, against this. You do realise that these aren?t comparable, don?t you? The face value of the shares of a publicly traded company, would be the £1 they were issued for originally, not the £x they trade for now. You are not comparing like with like.
Asset value ? you do realise that the values that are shown in the accounts do not necessarily reflect the realisable value of the assets (i.e players)? Ross Barkley will have no value in the accounts, for instance, as he is a home grown player, and has not been bought in. Again, not a true comparison.
Industry norms ? I personally can?t see the validity of a comparison against a company in the leisure industry. Do you think a Premier League Football Club is comparable to, say, Total Fitness?
You got it right, though, when you said the value of the club is what someone is prepared to pay for it. And nobody here is better informed on that than anyone else?

Hi Colin, 6 of us tomorrow including me and my son the others are in the paddock, you have the memory of an elephant! Where do you sit in GP?

Mark Wilson #083 - Lets get this straight about the bankers and the mortgage myth.
(1) People wanted mortgages.
(2) Bankers/brokers provided them.
(3) Civil Servants regulated the industry.

Quiz time - Who's is to blame - the bankers/brokers doing their job or the balloon head civil servants in the FSA who created the rules that they followed?
How many people who tow the party line about the terrible bankers are sitting in their "dream home" with a mortgage now?

Brian (952), Barclays may not have been bailed out by the British taxpayer, but they have benefited hugely from 2 other means - Quantitative Easing (central bank buying back assets/bonds, sometimes those sold only days before), and also the Bank of Englands Special Liquidity Scheme - measures introduced to help struggling banks.

Of course, this is all what-if, but if Barclays hadn't been outbid for ABN Amro, the state of play would be very different - and we'd probably be extremely fucked, rather than just screwed.

Gareth 166#. It's clear you and I see the state of banking very differently. You seem to defend them as innocents. After all, the poor dears tried desperately to report the greed-fuelled inappropriate risk-taking to the FSA every day... in fact I'm sure the wrongly blamed bankers did everything possible to ensure that loose regulation, a product of successive governments but championed by that free-marketeer, Maggi Thatcher, did not allow them to engage in casino-style investment tactics.

Of course the trillions spent saving the banking sector from collapse was as a result of civil servants in bowler hats wrecking the country, not the innocent private sector out for a quick buck.

Well, in this case, the private sector, well the financial sector to be accurate, got away with crazy selling of risky loans, often several times over, until the whole house of cards collapsed around them... and, as ever, the truly innocent paid the price for that greed and recklessness.

So I think defending the banks is almost as impossible as defending why it's the case that Everton can't buy a player for three years... but then I guess even that prompts a lively debate!
COYB!

Eric Myles: What's a little disappointing here is that you so obviously haven't read my post properly but you still feel blissfully confident about contradicting it. OK that's your right I suppose. You completely misrepresent what I wrote. For example, I didn't say a court order was required for a third party to be appointed but that it is only usually necessary when a court orders it (to settle an internal dispute for example) It's a big difference. Also, it's the BU who say they want enough money to fund the club AND develop a stadium for five years put in escrow. That's easily 150M to 200M. Incidentally, even if it was 25% of that it would still be unnecessarily onerous. Also, your statements on the actual value of the club are so inaccurate as to be almost beneath refuting. Obviously if we were actually bankrupt, which we aren't, the club would be worth a lot less. You also ignore the value of the players' contracts. You could sell just four players tomorrow for what you claim is the total value of the entire club! I'm glad you aren't handling the sale. An asset stripper would be in there like a rat up a drain. And I assure you that if a bank or any other creditor saw that the value of the club really was falling below the value of its debt and its ability to manage it they would push the club into administration faster than you can say Accrington Stanley. Fortunately it won't happen. I have no axe to grind with BU other than the fact they they refuse, often in a gratuitously offensive way, to accept any analysis or opinion other than their own - and that their proposals are flawed on their face. Fan protest is healthy. Micro-managing the board usually isn't. The only sensationalist scaremongering is coming from those who claim, usually in this order: a) we're on the verge of going bankrupt any second. b) the club isn't worth very much c) nobody wants to play for us d) if anybody does it means ipso facto they aren't any good e) lots of people want to buy us and build us a stadium but Kenwright stubbornly won't sell to them. Puh-leeeeze!

Bob #149 the trading price of Everton shares probably hasn't changed in years and is fairly static, see this website for other articles debating the price

Matt #167 I had friends at Barclays who were very open about the price of ABN Amro being way too high and they walked away with the inside line being that they could pick up the remains after someone else had paid over the odds for what was a "basket case"

Peter #269

e) lots of people want to buy us and build us a stadium but Kenwright stubbornly won't sell to them. Puh-leeeeze!

I thought B.K had stated publicly there were always interested parties - and just six weeks ago " We are are in negotiations with three or four interested parties."

Are you calling him a liar?

Peter. Your article - given your past condemnation of the BU - appeared quite concillatory.
In fact reading your second paragraph I thought for a moment you were a BU fanatic !!
Unfortunately your 269 reverts to type.
Maybe you're correct, maybe they refuse to accept any analysis or opinion other than their own.
So, can you tell me please who has submitted any other analysis or opinion ??
You certainly haven't you and others just slag BU by rote without putting forward any credible alternatives.
It's very easy to critisize the BU and their aims and how to achieve those aims.
If you truly believe what you wrote in your second paragraph I would suggest you put as much thought into alternative proposals from those of the BU.
Right or wrong the BU are just a group of good Everton supporters who have decided enough is enough and have given up their time and energy to try and rectify some of the obscenities this current board have undertaken.
It is a pity you and others condemn everything they try to do without suggesting alternatives
As long as the greatest Everton supporter is in charge we'll be ok - won't we Peter ??

Bob #149, when they report that Bill Gates is worth XXX billions how do they arrive at that figure? They take the number of the shares he owns and multiply it by the market value.

And when they report that Bill Kenwright is worth X million do they take the value of the Club that Bill wants to sell at? Or at the known selling value of the shares?

So yes, I'd say they are comparable, IPO value has nothing to do with the 'current value" of the company because if it did, it would never change.

Do you think that the value of our home grown players exceeds the £33.6 million net liabilities? And don't forget to factor in that a bankrupt company will have to sell at whatever offer it can get, not what they think their assets are worth. Much like if you default on your mortgage and the bank reposesses it, they will only be interested in selling it for the value of what you owe, not what it was bought for, or what you may think it is worth on the open market.

Sorry, don't know who Total Fitness are but I hope they are run better than our Club but I chose the leisure industry comparison because I didn't think the entertainment industry would go down well with the anti-Moyes Brigade ;-))

Peter, do I really misrepresent what you wrote? Let me remind you what that was.

"The Blue Union has become so committed to Kenwright?s downfall that I wonder sometimes if there are those who would be disappointed if success on the field ? in the FA Cup for example ? took the pressure off him" Ludicrous assertion that only you have dreamed up.

"Thirdly, the demand that a buyer put enough money to fund a stadium development within five years in escrow seems ludicrously onerous on a prospective buyer. We are talking £150M, £200M or more" Numbers purely made up by you.

"Further, if the valuation of Everton actually sank to the low level where Blue Union places it, creditors might be entitled to call in some if not all of their loans and put the club into administration." The creditors are entitled to do that at any time, what is more likely to scare creditors though is the fact that the Club operates on a 'cash preferred' basis as they cannot be trusted to pay their bills.

"Secondly, I would love to know why any major shareholder would agree to sell the club?s shares at significantly less than their real market value" and just what is that real market value Peter? I've had a go at making an estimate and I appreciate that you can't contradict the figures as they come from the club accounts. So why don't you have a go?

"First, when an outside entity is brought in to handle a sale it?s usually because a court has ordered it"

but then you say

"I didn't say a court order was required for a third party to be appointed but that it is only usually necessary when a court orders it" Which is exactly the same thing, and is of course incorrect as has been explained to you.

Wow, what a load of twaddle, Peter!

I'm not part of the BU, but I do happen to believe in their aims and I do want the best long-term future for our club.

The reason I disagree with virtually your entire post is that it is full of double standards and lots of plain factual errors.

For example, if bill kenwright decided tomorrow to sell the club for £1, would the banks call in their loans? Of course not! If the club is objectively worth £100M on the open market, then its still worth £100M afterwards. What kenwright decides to sell it for is neither here nor there. The assets(players, sponsorships, tv income etc) are still in place and worth a certain amount regardless.

Secondly we fans are constantly being told by Kenwright himself that he is the No1 Evertonian and has the club's best interests at heart. In that case if he accepts we need new investment & ownership he should price the club at a level where it will generate interest and offers and choose the best one.

However, if he is a businessman, interested first and foremost in making money out of the sale of EFC, then fine, he's the chairman and a shareholder.....but he should stop treating the fans like idiots and quit the bullshit about being a fan and wanting the best for the club. He can't have it both ways!

As for your other point about the BU making it difficult for Kenwright to sell, exactly how many years does Kenwright need? He's had peace, space and freedom to do what he likes for many years without any serious pressure from anyone. For years he's misled or lied to the fans about being serious about selling. Either that or he's utterly incompetent to hold the position of chairman of a major football club.

Whether he's a liar, a fool or a foolish liar, I don't want Bill Kenwright anywhere near EFC; he is not fit for purpose.

Finally, your issue about some people not wanting the club to have a successful cup run incase it relieves the pressure on bill....well I've no idea what the BU wants, but you can certainly add me to that list.

I'm interested in the long-term future of our club. I want us to be in the premier league and challenging for silverware in 10, 20, 30 years time. If a 2012 FA Cup run keeps "Blue Bill" in the hot seat for a few more years which causes us to get relegated or worse, then yes I'll happily see us get dumped out in the next round so that we get people in with money and a bit of acumen.

Peter an interesting article that has prompted an informative debate. I think the point TBU are making is that rather than the current major shareholders making a profit on their shares that money should in effect go into developing the ground. Hence their demand for the club to be sold for the debt and money placed in an escrow account. I agree with this in principle but I think the points you raise are worth thinking about on a practical level.
After reading your article and the rest of the debate I think TBU should consider changing their stance from selling the club for the debt to selling the club for the price the shareholders originally bought it for, plus obviously the debt. I also think they should put a figure for the money they want putting in an escrow account. I can understand why they think the club should be sold for the debt but I think this is amongst other things about winning hearts and minds. To that end I think it is a lot easier to win fans over to the idea that they should just get their money back rather than idea of them losing all of the money they have paid for their shares. With regard to the escrow account I think your comments have shown why it would be more beneficial to put a figure on this.

Mark Wilson #176 - I don't think we are going to agree on this one my mate are we?

Anyway - if the financial crisis results in the public sector to start being managed in a proper financial way then I'm all for it. All the jobsworths complaining about their pensions need to go and have a look at how much they would get from an annuity and then see how shite the offer on the table is it.

And to throw in a bit of Everton, Kim Jong Bill would fit in lovely on the board of HMRC overseeing that financial mess.

Up the blues.

The valuation of the club is not as simple as some on this thread seem to believe. It's different when a company is publicly quoted and the share value fluctuates but even that does not always give a true picture of a company's worth. The idea that Everton FC is worth only 45M or even less is plain wrong and it would be dangerous to offer the club for sale for so little. Asset strippers would be lining up down Goodison Road. We sold Lescott to Man City for 24M. Are you suggesting he was worth more than half the value of the club itself? Nonsense!

The problem is the Blue Union seem to me to be an organisation with too many Indians not enough chiefs. Both are their protests have failed to really change anything at all. In my opinion the best way to protest is by not turning up at all. That's what many fans have done and that is what will get your protest attention.

The Blue Union needs proper leadership who actually make intellgient decisions. Protesting outside Goodsion Park for 10 minutes doesn't actually change anything.

Another problem is their support for Moyes, a lot of passionate Evertonians feel Moyes has made a lot of mistakes that he should be held accountable for. Stop with all this "oppose staganation" nonsense and do something about it.

SOS only really got the attention of the national media when they protested in the ground; same with Blackburn fans. The best way to protest is by not attending I believe that will actually change things. If attendances continue to drop, then the club will have to take notice.

"It's different when a company is publicly quoted and the share value fluctuates" as opposed to a company that is not publicly quoted where the share value remains the same?

"Asset strippers would be lining up down Goodison Road" Look at the accounts, there is a net liability of £33 million, meaning that when all the assets are stripped there is still an amount owed.

So what do YOU think the value of the club is Peter? And how would you calculate it?

Chris "The best way to protest is by not attending I believe that will actually change things. If attendances continue to drop, then the club will have to take notice"

True to a ppoint except that the board will put it down to the economic climate, or the unattractive football.

Better to turn up and protest outside the ground for the duration of the macth so the board can see the empty seats and hear the protesters outside who will be noisier than those inside the stadium.

Peter #479,

Notwithstanding the fact that you've provided nothing to back up your claim that the club is worth £45m+, perhaps you can explain why the club hasn't been sold?

Either the price isn't right or we're not actually for sale. What other reason would an asset remain unsold for such a long period of time?

Also, this 'danger' you keep talking about, presumably you're aware of Directors' Fiduciary duties and the consequences of the actions you suggest?

Also, every £1 that The Board makes a potential buyer over pay is £1 that can't be spent on players or our infrastructure.

Finally, the very definition of an asset is the right to receive economic benefit in the future. Remind me what economic benefit a purchaser would be entitled to after buying Everton? The right to make cash losses or the right to fund the capital expenditure defecit left by the incumbent owners?

Awful spelling above by me. Deficit really is a word I should be familiar with by now.

Peter. I asked you some questions - post 531.
I'm not long back in after witnessing yet another load of shite that is a supposed to be football.
You and other anti BU posters keep telling us to be careful for what we wish for regarding clearing out this excuse for a Board of Directors.
Well after another complete waste of time and money I would be grateful for anyone to buy out Kenwright and co with fuck all money left cos with these idiots still in place we're only going one way and thats not up the league !
Sunderland have the same shite players they had at the start of the season and a change of manager has transformed them.
Hopefully a new Chairman who comes from a bedsit in Manchester will do the same for us !
People who are prepared to maintain the status quo are as culpable as the joke of a Board we have at present !

Richard Lardner: Look at how much Reading is being sold for. Everton has secure (ish) membership of the most lucrative league in the world. I can think of four players who together would bring in £45M plus if sold. Those are assets aren't they? The problem with these low valuations is that they are all based on the standard Evertonian The Sky is Falling mindset. We have more assets than you think. John Keating: I agree with you. I watched the same match as you. I would like to see Moyes sacked tomorrow and Kenwright and have someone with financial acumen and significant funds take control of the club. I deplore the status quo. I just don't think three three basic demands of the BU are very relevant. One alternative for BU would be to buy shares, (BU probably have shares) and launch a shareholders lawsuit against the board for misrepresentation and financial misconduct. The problem is they would need demonstrable facts and not just wild assertions. A successful lawsuit could force a resignation, possibly even a sale. It would also force the release of a lot of hidden information - if it really is hidden. At the heart of the problem is the fact that our players are under performing. That is issue #1.

Peter, in your OP entitled "Risking Hurting the Club You Love" you write

"I cannot imagine anything more potentially damaging to the club or to the motivation of a prospective buyer than the spectre of an FA investigation, a government probe into ?questionable ownership?, unnerved creditors, and scared-away sponsors. I thought Kenwright was OTT when he talked of Blue Union?s ?betrayal? but perhaps that scenario is what he was thinking of..."

And now as a sloution you suggest that shareholders should take the board to court as if that would not be potentially damaging to the Club.

YOUR assesment of the value of our players is as valid as your valuation of the price of the Club.

So Peter, your support for valuation of the club is that a couple of our players are worth £45m?

This strikes me as a particularly myopic view to be honest.

Why don't you do the analysis properly, add up the value of our squad and knock off the value of our liabilities?

What you're doing is akin to concluding that the UK's finances are on a sound footing because we're collecting billions of pounds of tax receipts, all the time ignoring that we have greater liabilities for pension payments and benefit entitlements.

You mention Reading as an example but then fail to provide a proper comparison. Other than the fact that they're in a lower league, why should they worth more less Everton? Their debt was repaid recently, on demand from the banks and they have systematically invested in their infrastructure over the last decade. Both of these things boost value.

Sure, Everton's debt has reduced which has undoubtedly boosted The Board's expected return but not to the extent that it should be ignored.

You are only performing one half of the equation Peter.

"Secondly, I would love to know why any major shareholder would agree to sell the club?s shares at significantly less than their real market value."

Here's the entire fucking crux. The real value of Everton FC is somewhere between £1 and £70M. The asking price is somewhere between £120M and £150M. If we were for sale at the real value then there would be willing buyers.

You don't need me to real of the list of football clubs to get new investment over the last 10 years. Or even since Bill's infamous "no-one's buying football clubs" quote.

I thank the BU for having the balls and the energy to stand up and try to make a difference.

Phil, as you say, that is the entire crux of the matter.

We have some information regarding the sale price of the club from the leaked Ian Ross emails. In one of the emails he is asked what the 25% of the club would cost to buy and he responds with "upwards of £25 million". From that we can reasonably take it that the board want £100 million for their shares plus the debt on top of that which would take the price of the club to around £140/145 million.

This is really something that the Echo should be investigating/writing about and it's a complete failure of journalism that they are not.

Richard #792, you say "Everton's debt has reduced" but Joe Beardswoods analysis of the 2010/11 accounts shows

Net debt has increased every single year since 2004/05.

Net liabilities increased in the last year from £28m to £33.6m.

We now have a record operating loss.

"One alternative for BU would be to buy shares, (BU probably have shares) and launch a shareholders lawsuit against the board for misrepresentation and financial misconduct."

-----------------------

You do of course know, Peter, that the usual result of a minority action by shareholders against directors is that the Court forces the the buyout of the minority shareholding... which would result in Kenwright getting more shares...

Of course you don't.

Eric 003#,

I think it's fair to assume that any cash received since the last set of accounts has gone on reducing the overdraft and/or other debts.

If we drew up some accounts today, I wouldn't expect net debt to be £45m. Would you?

No Richard, I'd expect it to be more than that until we sell a player in this transfer window.

Eric,

On what basis?

^The £17 million loss of cash out of the Club unless assets are sold. And the increased financing charges for the new Cayman Islands loan for starters.

The Arteta money is just a band aid on a carotid artery.

Eric,

I think you need to run your numbers again. You are including a lot of non-cash items in your 'cash loss number'.

If we were losing £17m a year during the biggest restriction of credit that the world has ever known, we would have a lot more to worry about than how much Bill wants for his shares.

Eric,

Jus to clarify the above. Clearly our results (which are already bad) have been, in part, subsidised by the sale of Bellefield and some players. However, you can't simply take an operating loss and conclude that that is how much cash we've lost (which I think you're fully aware of, not trying to patronise).

e.g., profit on disposal of players of £8m could mean that we've received £8m of cash or £30m of cash. It's too hard to tell from the accounting numbers.

You'd also need to add in the wage savings from said player disposals.

I'm not saying we're sitting pretty but I still think the clues as to our recent round of asset sales lies in the amount of credit due to expire in the next 12 months. ie, the banks are pulling the plug on our funding.

Which only goes to prove the dangers of living beyond your means and not having a business plan to support your 'ambition'.

Ciaran, That's the usual result when a court finds that there is an irresolvable disagreement and forces the majority shareholders to buy out the disaffected shareholders. But in this case the disaffected shareholders claim they can prove actual misconduct and misrepresentation. Isn't that what the whole Billy Liar tag is about? If they can't show misconduct, of course, they should stop leveling the accusations whether they are shareholders or not.

So Peter, you think that Kenwright has not lied to the fans? The money's ringfenced, the money will be in the bank in the morning, we won't get a safety certificate etc etc etc.

Richard, I'm talking nett cash flow, total income minus total expenditure (like Mr Micawber). Sorry if I'm not using accounting terms properly.

You have a point about saved wages but then we increased Fellainis salary to the same level as Arteta's, and extended a few other contracts. So I would not think that would make a big dent in the outgoings.

Remember also Richard that the banks forced the sale of Arteta as they were afraid that the overdraft would exceed £25 million this (financial) year.

The overdraft figure in the last accounts was £9 million so they were afraid that the Club would acquire another £16 million of debt.

Eric,

It's not the accounting terms I'm bothered about it's more the real maths, so to speak.

Ignoring buying and selling players and Bellefield etc, Everton made <£0.5m of EBITDA in 2011. Out of this money, the club needs to fund capital expenditure and interest. Clearly not a good position to be in.

However, this is quite different from losing £17m of cash unless assets are sold. You see, if we had not traded any assets during the year we would have been breakeven since we also spent £11.6m on players contracts and £0.6m on fixed assets. Using your analysis we should also discount those surely?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we're a healthy business, far from it. At the moment we need to borrow to service our debt. However, if we needed to sell £17m of assets every year just to stay standing still, we would be in all sorts of trouble.

Does that make sense?

Richard, is that £11.6m on players contracts, salary increases? Or Elstone's mystical 'player purchases' ie money we still owed for players previously purchased? Or both?

If it's the money owed from player purchases then I suppose it counts as an asset acquisition. But if it's salary increases it's just increased costs and doesn't.

You obviously have a more detailed set of accounts than me, and understand them better.

Eric,

I don't have a detailed breakdown of that number but it's definitely capital expenditure i.e., it will be either new player purchases or cash payments on instalments e.g., Fellaini.

Bottom line for me is that at 31 May 2011 we had £24m of loans falling due within 12 months. £9.1m of overdraft (repayable on demand) and £14m of bank loans. The banks have clearly indicated that these loans (or a portion thereof) are not going to be rolled, as would have been the case pre-Lehman.

This is the reason for the sell-off.

Obviously any deterioration in performance e.g., less prize money or gate receipts will exacerbate these issues.