Shareholder Windfall?

Richard, you also need to factor in the Overseas TV deal which is due for renewal for the same period. It would not be beyond expectation for that to come in around £2.5bn for the same 3 year period, as this has been the major growth area in TV coverage, leading in part to increased sponsorship deals for some clubs.

There is a tacit expectation in the media (including the News International press whose parent is a major shareholder of BSkyB and but for some unfortunate recent scandal would've owned it outright) that this will go into the players pockets. The Sun recently proclaimed that the top players would soon be earning £350k a week.

I think the time is overdue for Everton to stop paying high wages to average players. This will need to be managed, but if we weren't paying the likes of Anichebe £30k / wk, given his playing as well as his non-playing record, we might be better able to attract and retain the players who add value to the team, as well as the books.

As to your preposition that this would be an impediment to BK and others selling their shares, I have no doubt about it. Much of the growth in revenues of Everton over the last decade have been down to the broadcast revenue - something BK cannot influence other than being a voter in the pool of 20. Small mercies.

Matt

I can already see the queues of agents forming outside Premiership managers doors come the end of next season. Obviously maximising their clients worth to the football club, in short agents will demand massive hikes in wages for their players once the increase in Sky money arrives. So any thoughts of clubs being left with a bigger slice of the increase will be soon dashed.

The problem is that those with money wont agree to any type of cap on spending, yet this is the only real way out to help clubs survive. The percentage of club profit paid to players is obscene but nothing will change no matter how much money Sky plough into football.

I remember an interview with Brian Clough shortly before he died, and the reporter asked him how he would handle the modern players of today. Especially in regard to players wanting to renegotiate a 5 year contract after only 18 months. Clough said I would get him and his agent into my office and I would bring out the contract the player had signed, I would tell him if he didnt like the terms he shouldnt have signed the contract. Then I would tell him and his agent to come back when the contract was due to expire.

The new deal should mean higher income, and the banks appeased. It should mean the running down of debt, and a chance to compete.

But in reality, how much of it will simply expand the bank accounts premier league player? And will it simply give them the chance, as West Ham's Carlton Cole recently admitted, to buy up more streets and condemn the young and even sometimes middle-aged generation to renting a "Robbie Fowler house"?

Will the clubs get together to avoid such a waste? No.

Perhaps, the next tranche of our debt will be paid, and the balance lowered. But I fear it'll be little more than that.

The reality will be greatly increased transfer fees and wages for players ? and managers ? and the over-arching NECESSITY to maintain a place in the Prem at any cost. Reducing debt will not be a priority, believe me.

If you think pragmatism has brought negative football in recent years, you ain`t seen anything yet! It may be a back-handed compliment, but I cannot think of a single manager ? including the Sky 4 bunch ? who could do a better job for Everton or any similar club at this time.

Kenwright should double his money to keep him!

Should all be spent on Goodison. £37m x 3 seasons is £111m FFS.

You could virtually rebuild 3 sides in 3 years with that sort of cash. Players don't deserve any more. Matt's right ? stop paying these silly wages and get the Club sorted out financially now and for the future!

Lets get over the idea that we could rebuild Goodison on its present footprint and make much long tern impression on our competitivity on the top 6. The stadium has to be moved to achieve that unless we are going to knock down most of Goodison Road (compare our footprint with any of the top half in Google Maps - frightening).

I do agree though that £111 million if invested would make a big impression on the business for the future - supporting raising the cash for a new stadium for example.

We all know that all other clubs will spend it on wages. If we don't we will fall down the league. This money does little for capital but give us leeway to raise loans - partly because banks will see the Premier League as a highly recession-resistant investment.

Personally I think we need to spend the next few years consolidating to improve our long term standing. I would start with a share issue. 35,000 new shares at £2,000 a share. I know this seems high but football is not a normal business. This would raise £70M; existing shareholders would get first refusal so their holdings don't get diluted.

Use this money to clear the debts (£40M) and buy back Finch Farm (£15M) this would save us approx £6M a year. That leaves £15M.

I would use £10M to start stadium improvement, either upgrade or move. Then the final £5M for new signings along with any money from sales. I would sell older players not in the starting 11 and use younger players as backup.

Thomas the footprint argument is flawed and been done to death already. If all of the money is pissed away on players there will be little return.

Regarding Brian's point re agents (175) I'm sure he's spot on.

I also agree with Matt's point (147) re Anichibe.

The problem of (daft) wages I believe can only be solved if ALL the teams (or even just the none wealthy teams) come together and settle on a wage structure and code that would benefit them all in the long run.

At the moment we have, as Matt suggests, agents knocking on doors, whispering in players ears etc.

When a player is coming to contract renewal time and his negotiations begin, we know if he's a decent player (nb: decent, NOT Socrates) he will be pushing for more and if the club say no, he will be off.

And if the club say he can't go, he has a face like a smacked arse and 'isn't happy'.

However, if he is just decent, the chances are he won't being going to a top four side, so will be looking to get more money from a side not too different to the one he's leaving.

This is where, imo, it would pay ALL those 'other' club's need to stick together and come up with some sort of code which would (like with bad decisions) 'even itself out over the course of a season'.

I don't know exactly how it would work but something along the lines of, if a player or his agent start angling for a move and it's obvious he's not a Rooney but just wants more money, he should be given the choice 'it's this or fuck all - no other club will come in for him'.

Basically give him the choice of Anichibe-style wages (ie: incredible money for 99.9% of everyone on the planet) or...hanging around outside the chippy in a trackie with seven nicker in change to your name.

It'll never happen of course as each and every team seems incapable of being able to seeing 'the common good' or further than the end of their nose.