Skip to Main Content
Members:   Log In  |  Sign Up

New stadium – new approach

 Comments (240) jump to end

The stadium, we are told, is the main obstacle to Everton's dreams – or at least to the club attracting overdue investment.

This has been the case for far too long, and things aren't going to improve as long as Bill Kenwright and his Board of Directors are in situ.

And there's the rub: the Catch-22 scenario. The Board will not improve the stadium themselves because that would mean spending some of their own money; yet they cannot secure new investment due to the stadium (a situation which they, by the way, have had 13 years to remedy).

So, thanks to our "can't do, won't do" Board, we have a state of deadlock.

The stark statistic underlying this impasse is that, in 13 years at the helm, Kenwright and friends have invested nothing beyond the cost of their shareholdings. At the same time, some £20 million worth of assets have been turned into more than £40 million worth of debt... in order to keep our "can't do, won't do" Board in control.

So... how to break this less-than-virtuous cycle?

How about Everton putting out an Invitation to tender for the right to build a new stadium, with the club stipulating certain minimum criteria for any new home of EFC... with the incentive being that whoever builds Everton a new ground will receive ownership of a Premier League club in return, and therefore all proceeds of any future sale of EFC?

The current directors – Messrs Kenwright, Woods, Earl, Carter, Tamlin – would be entitled to no more or less than what they have put into the club, ie, they would get back the value of their shares. Everton, meanwhile, would gain a new stadium to boost commercial revenue – and with it a more solid footing from which to move forward.

Surely 'Blue Bill' wouldn't stand in the way of progress?


Patrick Hart, Liverpool     Posted 18/06/2013 at 22:21:22

back Return to Talking Points index  :  Add your Comments back

Reader Comments

Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer


Dennis Stevens
709 Posted 18/06/2013 at 23:30:35
I honestly expected the article to read as follows: FLATPACK!

Don't know why, it doesn't make any sense at all.

Andrew Laird
711 Posted 18/06/2013 at 23:26:02
''Blue Bill'' almost certainly would not be making that decision Patrick, he is the media puppet. The board and it's shadow backer(s) are looking for investment, so someone else takes on the financial risk that they are unwilling to.

As long as the club stays in the Premier League it's win-win as the clubs coffers will still be emptied through interest rates to a BVI company which may or may not be owned by current board members. Let's face it, if any of them were losing money they would be long gone by now, some probably waiting for another DK as the exit strategy.

Unfortunately the board will do what is right for them and not the club and I cannot see them selling without making an undeserved and substantial profit, they are all wealthy businessmen and Everton is just another business to them.

I wish your proposal had legs but cannot see it implemented anytime soon.

Matt Traynor
714 Posted 18/06/2013 at 23:51:56
Someone could indeed come along with that proposal, and they'd say no. They want that big payday. Catch 22 indeed.

Also, suspend reality for a moment, and say they did sell to new owners for a reasonable price, who wanted to build a new stadium... they'd also need to implement some costly changes, like escaping from some poor commercial deals that aren't delivering revenue. The new stadium would be a prospectus for new sponsorship deals, but would have a 3-5 year timeline assuming they could find a site, or longer if they were looking at gradual re-build.

I know it's hard to believe, but I think interim (!) owners could make it work. They could realise a huge asset shift with a stadium development plan, which would amplify commercial revenues as well as matchday. If done in a way where the risk was on the value of the new equity at the end of their tenure (they issue new shares to repay their investment whilst broadly maintaining the current share price), rather than leveraged buy-out or borrowing, they could easily sell to a sovereign wealth fund and make a return (likely that fund will be from Asia or even Africa rather than Middle East by that stage).

Will never happen though. No-one with an ounce of acumen would pay the price BK et al want for a distressed asset. I mean think about it, if someone spunks up the £125m they want (note, for their proportion of shares, valuing the whole club at £180m!) - would you think "these are the business brains we need"?

Dick Fearon
721 Posted 19/06/2013 at 00:39:35
Being part realist and part fatalist, about 8 years ago I suggested that relegation could be the long term saviour of Everton. Some clubs have come back from lower leagues revitalized with new stadiums and clear plans for the future.

I admit that such a scenario is fraught with risk but it holds true to my philosophy that it is better to fight the good fight on my feet rather than suffer a lingering painful demise on my knees.

Matt Traynor
722 Posted 19/06/2013 at 01:14:24
Dick #721, I've always dismissed that "option" when it's been offered. The reason being that in simple terms, clubs tend to go one of two ways - they either consolidate and bounce back, or they sink like the proverbial stone. I believe that in our case, with precarious finances and a board unwilling to step aside until they get their payday, we would sink like a stone.

Also, I'm just immensely proud of the fact we've played more top flight games than anyone else (even if Arsenal have a longer unbroken run).

Peter Foy
731 Posted 19/06/2013 at 06:21:33
Demand that the board get rid of the securities on the stadium, so they can do a sale and lease back to a developer, who does a phased development. Each improvement is reflected by rent increases. Or invite the people to do it with the fans trust.
Shane Corcoran
734 Posted 19/06/2013 at 07:30:22
So are you saying that some developer would pay for the build of a new stadium including the land to build it on, and get the club, debt and all?

So that's say £300m (pulled from thin air) for a club with large debt but with the potential to now make revenue?

Mmmmmm, doesn't sound so bad now that I type it.

Phil Walling
736 Posted 19/06/2013 at 07:34:34
If the Club has taken out long-term mortgages on Goodison Park would these not first need to be redeemed before any deal for a new stadium was entered into? Where`s that money coming from?
Peter Foy
738 Posted 19/06/2013 at 08:11:42
Shane, no. A phased re-development of Goodison Park, financed like Finch Farm through rent and a long-term lease. But the owners need to pay off of the debt secured on it before they could sell it to a developer.
Gavin Ramejkis
740 Posted 19/06/2013 at 08:18:26
Matt, I agree with the sink like a stone. BK will only relinquish the club to an official receiver or with his dying breath. Arsenal may have the longer unbroken run but they never earned their right to be in the top flight through promotion and were invited to join way back in the murky clouds of time.
Kevin Tully
742 Posted 19/06/2013 at 08:27:49
The club are tied into that many long term financing deals, it's difficult to see any way forward.

We are basically unsaleable... add to that an unrealistic asking price, and you won't find any takers I'm afraid.

If you take into account this is a loss-making operation, with no assets, and financed at punitive rates, I cannot for the life of me see where £120M would even be close to realistic.

Just accept we are stuck with these idiots, and life will be a lot easier.

Barry Rathbone
764 Posted 19/06/2013 at 09:05:53
The money grabbing gits are asking too much – it's as simple as that. It's piss all to do with the stadium.

If you put an original classic Ferrari up for sale needing an engine rebuild, complete paint job and interior refurb, the phone will ring off the hook – as long as the price reflects.

Asking "concours" money means you're a deluded chancer.

David S Shaw
781 Posted 19/06/2013 at 09:47:07
Maybe we should lower our aims. A new stadium or new Goodison is not happening, selling up isn't happening neither.

Just rebuild one stand with all the corporate boxes in there needed.

My choice would be a new Main Stand. Sell a player or two to fund if need be.

Lee Mandaracas
798 Posted 19/06/2013 at 10:44:57
Wow! David (781), you would rather deplete our already paper-thin squad to expand a dilapidated stadium that we rarely presently fill. How would we fill it once we get relegated and the herds of financial institutions call in our debts (for which we would then have no saleable assets due to them all jumping ship at reduced rates when we go down or having been sold to fund your new stand)?
Lee Mandaracas
800 Posted 19/06/2013 at 10:48:32
By the way, just having more corporate hospitality does not mean we would sell more, certainly when it means the loss of other seating to afford the space. It is my understanding that they never sell out corporate boxes at GP anyway, hence our players having them gifted to them instead.
Shane Corcoran
801 Posted 19/06/2013 at 10:57:14
Peter #738, my post was replying to the opening piece, not yours.

I understand your post however.

Kevin Tully
804 Posted 19/06/2013 at 11:00:17
Lee #800,

We only have 11 boxes, and they cost £45k per season. Villa have nearly 100, and the same box for 10 people costs £22k.

Ours would be sold out if we had them at that price. We are missing out badly, even the shitty marquee was sold out every game.

Danny Broderick
806 Posted 19/06/2013 at 11:10:45
We won't be going anywhere for at least 5 to 10 years, let's face it. We might as well add another tier to the Park End. That might give us £10 million less to invest in the squad, but even if it only takes us over the 40,000 attendance mark half a dozen times a season, it would still pay for itself in that time. And I would wager that attendances would improve more than that. Fans deciding at the last minute to go to a match would have more than crappy obstructed views to choose from.
Matthew Fearnhead
814 Posted 19/06/2013 at 11:22:31
Matt Traynor (714) - that last sentence is a corker. I can see it now, everyone celebrating the new deal until the Skysports Exclusive with the new owners. And the horror starts sinking in... Kermit & Co.
Frank McGregor
815 Posted 19/06/2013 at 11:42:44
Patrick, a rather pointless post. I believe the new stadium idea is dead and I don't blame the board from not moving on this item. Whilst you have KEIOC and Blue Union in the background, progress will be zero.
David S Shaw
818 Posted 19/06/2013 at 12:08:31
Lee, a couple of players could get injured and be out all season, I doubt that would make us relegation favourites.

The stadium is an obstacle to improve us beyond where we are now, nearly men. I don't see the point in delaying things, just to finish 6th or 7th, you leave the ground at the end of the season and within a few minutes that's it: nothing, where to go for a pint is the next discussion, another waste of a season.

I'd rather struggle a few seasons in mid table to get by without a couple of players if it makes us better in the long run.

Steavey Buckley
838 Posted 19/06/2013 at 13:27:14
Everton need a prestige company who will build Everton a new stadium named after their company and rented back to Everton at an realistic price. The same as with the situation with Finch Farm.
David Nicholls
845 Posted 19/06/2013 at 13:45:59
If we don't sort out the stadium situation in the next 10 years then we could fall way behind clubs who at one time would not be mentioned in the same breath as Everton.

Man City and now West Ham have benefitted from sporting events being held within their respective cities.

Any chance of Liverpool bidding for any up and coming global spotrting events?

Peter Jamieson
846 Posted 19/06/2013 at 14:39:36
We would have had a new stadium by now if the romantacists hadn't blocked the Kirkby project.

Matt Traynor
847 Posted 19/06/2013 at 14:37:06
David #845, on another thread Kevin Tully posts figures that suggest we're paying out around £7m a year in interest. With secondary revenue depressed by poor commercial deals, plus other finance charges not shown as interest, but as other costs, we could be losing out by anything from £15m-20m per year. This has been going on for years. We're already behind other clubs.

The point you make means if it carries on, it'll become almost too large a gap to bridge.

I wouldn't hold out any hope of landing an event in Liverpool to benefit from a "virtually free stadium" either (where did I hear that before?) The council is so skint it can't even stage the Matthew Street festival anymore.

Eugene Ruane
849 Posted 19/06/2013 at 14:37:06
'Frank McGregor' (815) - "Patrick, a rather pointless post. I believe the new stadium idea is dead and I don't blame the board from not moving on this item. Whilst you have KEIOC and Blue Union in the background, progress will be zero"

Is THAT what it is?

So let me get this straight - we WOULD be getting a boss, new state-of-the art ground, but because a couple of supporters groups exist, who refuse to go along with every single thing the board tells them (even though we KNOW this board have bullshitted and broken promises many times) we won't get one.

Well that all makes sense, I can see their point of v.... hold on, the BU and KEIOC weren't in 'the background' for KD.

Sorry, I'm very confused.

Tony Waring
850 Posted 19/06/2013 at 14:54:28
Is this the same Pat Hart familiar to supporters of SQ?
Chris Wright
852 Posted 19/06/2013 at 14:52:21
Peter (#846) — Go on then, I'll bite...

I assume by the "romantics" you mean the Government of the day who blocked the whole project, due to the poor communication links, lack of finance in place, and the adverse effect it would have had on Kirkby High Street. Were you one of the thousand going by bike?

Also any idea how it would have been funded by the board, because if you read their quotes they clearly didn't. Kirkby was a disaster missed. (I actually believe the board were relieved with the failure of the project.) Now the Kings Dock on the other hand.............

Eugene Ruane
853 Posted 19/06/2013 at 15:10:16
Chris (852) - Maybe there's something yet to be revealed.

You can laugh about Peter's claim it was the fault of 'romantacists' but I distinctly remember hearing of a 'secret meeting' held by Steve Strange at the Blitz that was intended to "Just..yeah nail this..like whole Kirkby thing".

Although still shrouded in mystery, it is believed the meeting DID take place and in attendance that night were Spandau Ballet, Rusty Egan and Boy George.

Adam Ant who wasn't admitted takes up the story.

"I'd heard about the meeting and wanted to attend, I thought the whole Kirkby thing was a disgrace and that the travel plans would have resulted in chaos. However when I arrived at the Blitz I was turned away by Strange who reckoned I was more of a 'New Dandy' than a New Romantic. I told him we were all Evertonians but he wouldn't budge. When I tried to push past, he hoofed me in the nuts and said "Stand and deliver THAT!"

I for one have no reason to disbelieve Ant or Peter.

Peter Jamieson
858 Posted 19/06/2013 at 15:57:10
Chris,

The Romantacists (Not Romantics Eugene – but almost funny) that opposed the scheme because they thought that redeveloping Goodison, or building within another site (such as the one near the tunnel) were viable alternatives. They weren't. Kirkby was the last real shot we had at getting a new stadium – it wont happen now. Were stuck with the old lady and therefore we will never exploit our full potential.

I agree the biggest sin in the past was the Kings Dock fiasco.

Bobby Mallon
859 Posted 19/06/2013 at 16:07:01
Just a thought: would it not be possible for Everton with LCC to build a new stadium on the Finch Farm land incorporating training facilities, with shops and cafes etc? Seems to me we have the land already made for a new stadium? (I may be wrong.)
Matt Traynor
861 Posted 19/06/2013 at 16:12:30
Peter #858, DK was rejected by the government not because of a group of fans are wedded to Goodison, but because it drove a coach & horses through planning guidelines. Tesco has moved on quickly from it, and BK did as well - I think even he knew it would've been a financial disaster, though he'd have sold up long before that turkey came home to roost.

But you probably know this.

Kevin Tully
863 Posted 19/06/2013 at 16:02:09
Looking at this conundrum from a different perspective, is there anyone at the club who could deliver a project of this size?

There are only really two Board members who are actively involved with the club. One is a theatre luvvy who works full time in that particular profession. The other guy is a retired software designer who just wants a seat on the big table.

Our CEO couldn't even oversee a badge design – never mind a new stadium.

We're fooked guys, whichever way you want to look at it.

Eugene Ruane
865 Posted 19/06/2013 at 16:04:15
Peter (858) - "The Romantacists (Not Romantics Eugene - but almost funny)"

Well admittedly not as funny as..

"We would have had a new stadium by now if the romantacists hadn't blocked the Kirkby project"

For sheer hilarity and laughs, you DEFINITELY win.

By the way, three things you should know.

1) Eating a lot of cheese makes your eyelashes longer.

2) The Turks have 115 words for a Curly-Wurly.

3) Male ants have three cocks.

These things are true because I say them, I don't feel I have to give reasons or substantiate them.

Stupid?

Maybe..but no more than..

"...they thought that redeveloping Goodison, or building within another site (such as the one near the tunnel) were viable alternatives. They weren't"

Really, why?

Fact: We can all just fling out any old bollocks if we don't give reasons.

(although I have a feeling the Curly-Wurly thing IS true)

Michael Kenrick
866 Posted 19/06/2013 at 16:43:56
Booby (#859), I think that's a non-starter. Finch Farm is further out than the airport! And I believe the training facilities fill the available land... although it is surrounded by fields, that would need a substantial additional land purchase. The cows might like the shops and cafes though...
Colin Wainwright
868 Posted 19/06/2013 at 16:40:09
I'm in total agreement, Frank McGregor. Why should the board move on the stadium issue with KEIOC and the Blue Union in the background?

These people just wont give them the peace to force through any half-arsed, laughable, "radio rental", pathetic, unworkable, probably illegal, gobshite schemes that they dredge up. No wonder Bill's grey! They just wont leave him to fuck things up good and proper.

Peter Jamieson
869 Posted 19/06/2013 at 16:56:16
Eugene, beating you for sheer hilarity and laughs is not really an effort is it, becuase you're not funny.

We haven't got any money, didn't then, haven't now. We need either someone to build a stadium for us or get enough investment to build one ourselves.

The tesco project was the last best chance we had. We can't afford to build a stadium on our own, The Red Sh*te can't afford to build one either.

At least the Tesco project had a chance of happening.

Colin Wainwright
871 Posted 19/06/2013 at 17:10:51
Peter. "At least the Tesco project had a chance of happening."

No it didn't.

Peter Jamieson
872 Posted 19/06/2013 at 17:17:32
Colin, Yes it did.
Colin Wainwright
873 Posted 19/06/2013 at 17:20:15
Peter. The project was flawed at every level of the Planning Regulations. If you can bear it, visit KEIOC's website or trawl through the many threads from that time, on this very site. Educate yourself or carry on making a complete fool of yourself, it's up to you.

There was more chance of a Thatcher memorial being erected down the Dock Road.

Peter Jamieson
875 Posted 19/06/2013 at 17:32:51
Colin it wasn't flawed at every level, as it only fell at the last hurdle, which was some government policy on local communities.

Anyway the point is the Blue Union and KEIOC got what they wanted and 4 years on where are we? and where will we be in another 4years - in exactly the same place or worse.

Eugene Ruane
876 Posted 19/06/2013 at 17:10:29
Peter (869) - "Eugene, beating you for sheer hilarity and laughs is not really an effort is it, becuase you're not funny".

Well I bet I'm not getting the laughs your spelling of 'because' is.

You state "The tesco project was the last best chance we had".

Well, I realise that I'm pissing in the wind here, but why not go to keioc, look at the inquiry and find out the REAL reason/s why it didn't happen.

You could, for once, actually learn something rather than spouting ludicrous unsubstantiated shite that makes you look a cartoon bar-room blowhard who knows nothing yet has a (fact-free) opinion on everything.

Colin Wainwright
877 Posted 19/06/2013 at 17:38:23
Peter.

Transport, both public and private, Parking, total development scale, footprint of the proposed stadium, viability of the retail development........as I said, go and read the official documents. They are all available.

Colin Wainwright
878 Posted 19/06/2013 at 17:48:14
And that is before we get to the lies told by the Everton Board to the Everton supporters, at every stage of the debacle, from initial vote, right through to the inquiry.
Peter Jamieson
882 Posted 19/06/2013 at 18:06:30
Eugene, go put your head in the fridge.
Eugene Ruane
883 Posted 19/06/2013 at 18:08:35
- Thank you Bill Hicks.

Peter Jamieson
884 Posted 19/06/2013 at 18:07:45
Colin,

Fine, put your faith in KEIOC, where has it got us?

Peter Foy
889 Posted 19/06/2013 at 18:20:51
Peter, put your Faith in the board. Where are they taking us?

I dread to think!!

Colin Glassar
890 Posted 19/06/2013 at 18:24:33
Herr Kenwright will never accept losing his empire. Forget it.
Peter Jamieson
891 Posted 19/06/2013 at 18:23:31
Peter,

I'm no lover of this board, far from it.

But, realistically, what can they do?

If we'd had a new stadium, we'd at least be saleable.

As much as we dislike the board, I'm afraid you're stuck with them.

How are we ever going to get a new buyer? One tour around Goodison and a look at the balance sheet, and the dodgy loans, remortgages, etc.

We're fooked.

Gavin Ramejkis
892 Posted 19/06/2013 at 18:11:37
Peter where has your faith in Kenshite and his merry band of carpetbaggers gotten you? 14 years later, tick tock, fuck up, tick tock, fuck up, almost a melodic repeating hum to it. Seriously if you cant even be arsed to read the public domain information as to how and why Desperation Kirkby was put out of its misery instead hanging the blame on KEIOC I do pity you. but do have some magic beans I could do you a deal on.
Kieran Fitzgerald
893 Posted 19/06/2013 at 18:07:34
The whole stadium thing is depressing. I read a couple of years ago that City were paying 4m a year to rent their stadium. Considering what the stadium would have cost to build, and considering the facilities it would have to befit the commonwealth games in terms of media and hospitality, 4m a year was a steal.

I don't know what West Ham are paying but the same line of reasoning would apply in terms of the Olympic stadium. I appreciate that their fan base is nowhere near what City's is, but having the facilities in place is have the battle.

For Everton, getting a stadium handed to them this way is the only option we could afford right now. The sale of one big name player, or even the increase in the sky money, would cover the annual rent for a number of seasons.

The thing is though, I can't see the region getting that type of funding in the near future. You would presume the midlands or the north east would be next in line. The north west in Manchester got the commonwealth money and the south east region in London got the Olympic money.

Patrick Murphy
894 Posted 19/06/2013 at 18:35:53
If I was the owner of Everton I would be badgering UEFA and FIFA for money to compensate for our ban from Europe and missing out on Europe via the silly one city one club rule in the 60s.

Goodison Park is one of the few original stadiums with Cup Finals and World Cup Semi-Finals etc having been staged there.

it would be a long shot but if we could somehow get redevelopment funding from such a source even if it was a low interest loan or similar with a caveat that we would never be able to sell the ground for a period of say 50 years. I'm not saying use public money for the benefit of the owners but surely if there was a will to doing something along those lines it would be good for everyone.

A great deal of football heritage is attached to Goodison and it would be a shame if we couldn't at least attempt to preserve and improve it for future generations. Just an idea, any European funding experts out there?

Tom Hughes
900 Posted 19/06/2013 at 18:44:15
The most depressing aspect of this thread is that there are still a few misinformed individuals who prefer to blame anyone but those responsible.

The same people who failed over the Kings Dock debacle then tried to inflict the fundamentally flawed Destination Kirkby on us. The transport plan was revised several times and was still laughed out of the inquiry. (Best connected stadium in the country they promised).... so much so that Knowsley quickly submitted a clause limiting the capacity to just 40k or less if key criteria weren't met. The inquiry showed these criteria could never be met at this site.

It was supposed to be an effectively free stadium yet it suddenly went upto a minimum of £78m..... for a stadium we couldn't even get to easily. It was supposed to be state of the art yet it would have less boxes than the Reebok and massive viewing distances for its capacity.

KEIOC's campaign was intended to highlight the highly contentious claims surrounding the whole scheme. They were fully vindicated and proven right on every score. ..... they should be thanked for ensuring this project collapsed.

All of Goodison Park's failings could be resolved for less than Kirkby. Furthermore, it can be done in affordable bites as has been achieved at so many other clubs. LCC are receptive to expansion proposals and the footy quarter framework is a workable one. LFC are already implementing their portion of this scheme.

At GP we can have modern and traditional, side by side with tried and tested transport infrastructure in place. All that is required is an ambitious board with a long term vision who can deliver....

Ian Bennett
904 Posted 19/06/2013 at 19:48:13
Liverpool should go for the commonwealth games. We'll have the stadium after it.
Phil Walling
905 Posted 19/06/2013 at 19:58:28
I always thought DK would not have happened even if had been given the all clear. Kenwright & Co would have shit themselves if they had been asked to find more than a few quid let alone £78M.

Believe me, they know they had a lucky escape!

Ray Said
906 Posted 19/06/2013 at 20:07:31
Ian Bennett (904) Liverpool get the Commonwealth Games, Liverpool get the stadium-we get the shaft
Richard Dodd
907 Posted 19/06/2013 at 20:16:36
Hey,Wally,if you are right,it means KEIOC saved BK`s ass.
Bit ironic that,don`t you think?
Kevin Tully
917 Posted 19/06/2013 at 20:50:32
The only way we could raise funds for redevelopment is a rights issue. Spurs followed this model years ago, and I am sure we would have a lot of interest considering our fanbase, and future possibility of a sale.

It would of course mean the current Directors investing more cash, or their shareholding being diluted. Below is a brief explanation of how it worked for Spurs:

"Spurs plans to use the £11M raised from its rights issue to redevelop the North Stand at White Hart Lane and complete the development of the South stand. The club's £5.8M debts will also be reduced though none of the rights issue cash will go to buy players.

Work on the North Stand should start towards the end of next season and be completed for the start of the new season in August 1997. The existing stand is likely to be closed for four or five games at the end of next year which will mean a slight loss of revenue.

The one-for-four rights issue is priced at 270p. Mr Sugar is not taking up his rights (which would cost him more than £5M). His stake will fall from 51% to 41% and his £2M-share entitlement will be taken up by institutions."

Steve Jones
919 Posted 19/06/2013 at 20:22:32
Tom

"Furthermore it can be done in affordable bites as has been achieved at so many other clubs"

You mean it can be done in a phased manner? That's not the same as saying its affordable is it?

With this board showing their unwillingness or inability to invest in the infrastructure they have tried to move us out of, any improvements would have to be funded by debt. Debt that the new infrastructure revenues would have to pay down before contributing anything to the club!

With this board, the phased approach is as unrealistic as a new stadium.

Peter Foy
925 Posted 19/06/2013 at 21:01:47
Patrick (894) for a private business to get access to public money on the required scale at a low interest rate would attract the attention of the EU (see Finch Farm thread) state aid investigators.

But in our big society, if it was done within the framework of a Community looking to improve a historical focal point in that community, who knows?

John Gee
952 Posted 19/06/2013 at 21:54:48
Step 1: Kenwright has to take the club off the market. This whole '24-7' thing isn't helping us as it cheapens the club by making it look unsellable and, more importantly, it allows the chairman and the board to abdicate responsibility for growth by assuming the roles of interim administrators.

Step 2: Adopt the plans for redevelopment of Goodison that we've all seen and get the ball rolling. Once 1 stand is closed for rebuilding the project will gain a momentum of it's own. If it has to be funded by player sales, then that's a sacrifice we'll have to make for the long term good.

Step 3: We need local political capital. That 'localism' should encompass the local council, FA, Uefa and anyone else we can think of to consolidate our place in the traditional top 5 (which probably still exists in certain corridors of power).

Thomas Lennon
961 Posted 19/06/2013 at 17:41:13
13 years at the helm relates to two different groups – the first group fought debt and relegation, the present group have been there since 2004 and since then the debt has risen from £42 million to what, £48 million in 8 years while at the same time gradually improving our team and league position. Not a bad record of consolidation?

Assets running around the pitch? – it would be interesting to compare 2004 with 2012.

Turnover? Up 100% come this season.

There are of course fundamental problems with the underlying structure that generates money – namely the stadium and the relatively low disposable income of Merseyside. But given this is a group of owners who are not spending their own money they could be a lot worse than some who do.

Dennis Stevens
964 Posted 19/06/2013 at 22:21:32
Peter Jamieson - Is it possible that you are the last man alive to still think that DK was going to be a free stadium? That must be like being one of those Japanese soldiers that hadn't realised the war was over a couple of decades after Hiroshima!
Steavey Buckley
970 Posted 19/06/2013 at 22:23:59
Everton won't have a stadium until someone pays for it and then rents it back at a reasonable rate.

Those on this debate haven't put forward any reasonable idea where it is coming from, never mind where it should be built.

The Everton board won't sanction for one being built.

They haven't got the will or the cash to spare.

New owners want to move in and buy Everton when everything is in place, including a new stadium.

Kevin Tully
975 Posted 19/06/2013 at 22:40:18
I'm actually quite surprised a private company hasn't come forward with a PFI type deal for a shared stadium in Stanley Park.

You could build a state of the art stadium that would generate very attractive returns for the investors. The clubs would win hands down because of the extra match day revenues that would surely come close to covering the rental costs. The landlord would be able to hold concerts and events etc. outside of match days, adding to other income streams.


Peter Jamieson
977 Posted 19/06/2013 at 22:35:53
Mr Dennis Stevens,

No, I never said that. Did I.? So any humorous Japanese analogy is as pointless as you.

It is well reported that it would have cost Everton around £80 million.

The point is, and I've had no answer to any of the points I've made – as expected, that DK was our shot. It could have worked.

But now we have nothing, absolutely nothing. I'd rather have had a shot at making the club saleable. The way the club is now, with the ground, we have no chance, ever, of getting the investments we need.

Blame the board, but it's too late, you could put in place several boards, the situation wouldn't change.

You can't polish a turd. We won't get the investment we need with our current level of debt and Goodison Park.

We had the chance to change one of those factors, but didn't.

Tom Hughes
984 Posted 19/06/2013 at 23:00:16
Peter. ..... you really need to read up on the findings of the public inquiry. The failure of which meant that Everton missed out on approx just £12m of enabling funds. A relative pittance in terms of the total stadium costs. So why didn't they follow through with their plans? By the end of the inquiry everyone (including the club) knew that it was a poor stadium in a poorer location that would have almost certainly seen capacity limited to 40k or less. This wouldn't even meet break even.

Goodison is our only remaining solid asset. It has its obvious failings but it also has real strong quality too. Historically it is the site of the world's first purpose built football stadium. If that isn't something you can sell to a new owner, I'm not sure what is.....

It is also the home of not one but two classic Archibald Leitch double-deckers...... both of which can be expanded. It is a unique stadium that regularly earns plaudits from commentators and players alike for its special feel and atmosphere. If we can't build on that or even see its value compared to a fundamentally flawed, characterless out-of-town, out-of-sight, out-of-mind cowshed, then you would have to question the motives and credibility of the decision makers.

Dick Fearon
986 Posted 19/06/2013 at 23:06:22
When the DK debate was raging KEIOC and others came up several alternative that would work and be heaps better.

Can someone remind me what those alternatives were and what came of them?

Patrick Murphy
991 Posted 19/06/2013 at 23:31:14
Tom I would go as far as to say that Goodison is our only tangible asset - not including the players - how many games have been won or points won due to the unique atmosphere that Goodison - despite its age - produces? I don't think that atmosphere would or could have been replicated in a new concrete bowl type stadium.

I don't know what people are thinking when they believe that DK was our best opportunity to improve the club's fortunes and that they also think there is no possibility of seeing us develop over time, obviously if the board decides that they will carry on for another ten years with no discernible plan then that is what will probably happen. But if they decide to implement a plan with proper costings and achievable targets then anything is possible.

We can't buy back the years that have been lost, but surely the board must see that doing nothing is not an option.

Dennis Stevens
993 Posted 19/06/2013 at 23:30:28
No Peter, you didn't exactly say that - if you had my response wouldn't have been in the form of a question. However, what you did say was : "We haven't got any money, didn't then, haven't now. We need either someone to build a stadium for us or get enough investment to build one ourselves. The Tesco project was the last best chance we had. We can't afford to build a stadium on our own ..." — which caused me to seek clarification.

This comment, and much else you've posted, doesn't actually make a lot of sense now that you've clarified that you are fully aware that DK was not actually a free stadium.

I'm glad you found my analogy humorous, although it was actually rather sad. What is pointless is pretending to be polite by addressing me as Mr before you insult me.

I would ask you to explain just how you think DK "...could have worked." But that might well prove to be pointless, sad & humorous all at the same time.

Tom Hughes
996 Posted 19/06/2013 at 23:38:43
Steve Jones. ..... you might be right regarding this board and its motives and ability to deliver. However it doesn't affect the feasibility of the redevelopment option. The strength of the redevelopment options is the fact that you don't have to build a whole new stadium. This, combined with potential joint venture development on club-owned property, and supporting council-led regeneration of the school site, for instance, might open up several funding and sponsorship streams.

The new TV money alone could put another tier on the Park End adding 4-5k capacity and 20+ boxes and still give change. This is why redevelopment is easily the most common-sense solution.

Tom Hughes
001 Posted 19/06/2013 at 23:56:29
Dick..... KEIOC sounded the club out on whether they wanted to consider the redevelopment option. There was no real interest or appetite for the process at that time.

The Bestway people were treated abysmally by Wyness whose whole brief was to deliver Kirkby and Kirkby alone, and it showed. They simply walked away after having commissioned the best known stadium architects in the world to do a site study at no small expense.

I think the general consensus amongst their representatives was that they didn't think they could work with these people........ another opportunity wasted before it was even considered properly.

Eric Myles
012 Posted 20/06/2013 at 05:51:31
Peter #857 "Were stuck with the old lady and therefore we will never exploit our full potential."

Then isn't it about time the board faced up to the facts and did something about redevelopment of GP? Then we WILL be able to better exploit our full potential.

Peter Jamieson
014 Posted 20/06/2013 at 06:37:22
Eric

With what money?

Colin Wainwright
019 Posted 20/06/2013 at 07:34:31
Peter, this is why they need to sell, at a reasonable price, to people who have the finance to take the club forward, or, at least, appoint a competent organisation to oversee the sale. The self appointed "best salesman for EFC" has been found wanting.
Colin Wainwright
020 Posted 20/06/2013 at 07:40:55
Kirby would only have delivered for Tesco PLC and Arcadia Group. Everton would still be in the shit, only deeper. IMO.
Paul Andrews
021 Posted 20/06/2013 at 07:45:56
Peter Jamieson 891,

"How are we ever going to get a buyer. One look around Goodison, a look at the balance sheet, the mortgages and the dodgy loans etc..."

They have got a lot to answer for that BU and Keioc.

An old saying Peter. "If you continue robbing Peter to pay Paul you will undoubtedly end up fucked."

Thomas Windsor
025 Posted 20/06/2013 at 08:15:25
Man City where really lucky getting that new stadium off the council... that could have been us.

Goodison is a real dump now — the Bullens Road is terrible.

Alan Williams
026 Posted 20/06/2013 at 08:50:48
Kevin, PFI are a terrible way to fund new projects and the great Mr Brown used these all the time and has caused years of misery for schools and hospitals that have to fork out over the odds thus meaning less for patient/pupil care, my local hospital has two new wards closed one which is a specialist cancer ward as they cant afford the scanners and equipment to fill it as the rent for the new building is too expensive local press report the repayment is treble the build cost! Finch Farm deal smacks us like a PFI return so using this form of finance is a disaster unless it has a fixed low interest rate. PFI are a massive scam of Blair’s reign and we bought most on the state credit card and are now paying the price, for balance the current government are using them now too but on a smaller scale and lower interest rate which is what the Liverpool Royal has taken up. Politicians in some ways are like the EFC board they make short term decisions mainly due to the fact they don’t have long term security. The council would only apply for the CG if it was a shared stadium option, sadly we share the city with a sack if shite across the park.
Kevin Tully
027 Posted 20/06/2013 at 09:08:22
John Gee # 952,

That is a great point you make. As long as they say they are looking to sell the club, they don't have to produce any plans for the future.

Any time they are asked about the ground, merchandising, commercial deals, or anything regarding improvements, B.K. has a stock answer - 'everyone knows we are looking for a buyer, or investment, what more can we do?'

He also adds this has been going on since he took control. It is giving them a free ride, and everyone just shrugs their shoulders and walks away.

Paul Andrews
031 Posted 20/06/2013 at 09:40:41
Kevin,
Time for the shoulder shrugging to stop. The Chairman and his board are far too comfortable while attending the games, people should make their point to them at every opportunity, outside and inside the stadium. Only when they get out of their comfort zone will we see movement.
Noel Early
032 Posted 20/06/2013 at 09:43:34
We missed the boat regarding the stadium, Kings Dock would have been ideal and a Kirby move would have seen the club sold now. The most logical move – and we all know it – is a Groundshare with the evil empire but that would be greeted with the usual hysteria.

Both sets of clubs and fans need to agree on it. Easy Right??

Phil Walling
034 Posted 20/06/2013 at 10:14:18
None of us can see how BK & Co. will ever attract a buyer at £120M. The market price of the shares can hardly be more than the accumulated debt so they would do well just to get their money back.

They must know this, so I suspect they just sit there, enjoying the glory and perks of association with a Premier League club whilst their mates get rich on all that interest. Only when the debt is so large they can`t meet the bill will they look to change the status quo. In the meantime, Goodison will fall down around them.

Kevin Tully
037 Posted 20/06/2013 at 10:11:26
I really think they should be pushed on a rights issue Paul. It won't cost them a penny (only diluting their shareholding) and we could start redeveloping Goodison with the proceeds.

One stand, complete with 30 corporate boxes would probably generate enough extra revenue to purchase Finch Farm, and at last would give us some direction.

It may even attract the buyer the Board are looking for, making them millions in the process, so I can't understand why there seems to be no will to explore these options.

I do think Everton is not much more than full time hobby for the current Board, that's why they are sitting on their hands, hoping an outside party will appear and miraculously make everything better.

Tom Hughes
039 Posted 20/06/2013 at 10:30:11
Moyes very nearly got them on the Champions League gravy train on several occasions, and they hung onto that hope every season, selling everything in sight in the process just to keep our heads above water and chase the dream. They knew that, if achieved, this would at least create the illusion of high value saleability.... and who knows maybe even sustainability for them to glory in.

It's been like an all-or-nothing, last-throw-of-the-dice thing with Moyes forever just managing to get some money back for another go. If Martinez cannot at least match Moyes, the illusion will be well and truly shattered.

Kevin Tully
040 Posted 20/06/2013 at 11:11:43
Tom, in your opinion, how long will it be before the structure of Goodison becomes a serious issue?

We know safety & inspection legislation is becoming more stringent, and I haven't been the Bullens Road side of the ground for years, but is there going to be a problem in the next 5 years or so?

There are only so many times you can paint over steelwork!

Matt Traynor
042 Posted 20/06/2013 at 11:28:29
Alan Williams #026, PFI was a creation of your beloved Tories, and essentially a way of keeping the PSBR in check. It's too simplistic to state that it's a terrible way of funding projects - it's really all about how you manage and more importantly transfer risk.

Too much risk that was best left under Govt was put on the private sector, who had to then price for it. However, with projects that have considerable upside, the benefits of sharing that between govt and private sector with a cap are clear. The 2nd Severn crossing was delivered in this way, with the constructor, Trafalgar House, handing the project to the public sector years early after receiving their capped upside.

But you are correct in simply tossing projects to the private sector for funding is inefficient - the costs of capital between private and public sector makes that obvious.

Labour did drop an absolute bollock with the Public Private Partnerships they were so fond of - as we found out to no-one's surprise with the London Underground PPP.

Back on topic for this thread, a PFI/PPP type arrangement wouldn't work with Everton, as too much of their revenue streams are already in hock, or under-performing due to onerous contracts entered into which would cost substantial amounts to escape from. Any consortium looking at this would look at the actions of the Board over the years, and attack a risk premium so high as to make it financial suicide for the club. Not that I don't think they'd go for it.

I think if the club was for sale for the right price, there would be buyers who would take a medium-term view to improving the financial and asset position of the club. But the price quoted by Tyrell to TalkSPORT (£125m for the shareholding of the 3 amigos) effectively values the whole club at around £180m, and that's not even an invitation to approach - that's a clear Not For Sale - do not waste your time.

Paul Andrews
043 Posted 20/06/2013 at 11:53:51
Kevin,

There has been several options for ground improvement done in stages.

A very impressive scheme was designed by an architect during the Kirby fiasco.Trevor Skempton is the guys name.

I believe he has had a hand in designing various sports stadiums. Well worth a look.

Michael Brien
045 Posted 20/06/2013 at 11:54:30
New stadium - sorry but I think we missed a really golden opportunity when the Park Stand was built in 1994.The car park at the rear is wasted space in my opinion. We could and should have made building a stand at the Park End the starting point of a rebuilding of Goodison Park. A double decker stand could have been designed, going over some of the car parking space at the rear - but still allowing for the parking,Beyond the car park area, there is the road and then Stanley Park. There would have been no houses to worry about.

When I first went to a match at Goodison back in 1964, Goodison had a unity about it with the design of the stands. Yet it hadn't been all built at the same time, even though it looked as if it had. I think the Park End dated from the early 1900's, the Goodison Road stand from around 1909, Bullens Road stand from around 1926 and Gwladys Street 1938. I may be wrong with some of those dates - but the point is Goodison was developed over a period of time. Why not do that again - redevelop our stadium over say 10 - 15 years?That way the outlay could be spread over a number of years.

Eugene Ruane
047 Posted 20/06/2013 at 12:37:20
Paul (043) - "A very impressive scheme was designed by an architect during the Kirby fiasco.Trevor Skempton is the guys name"

I do remember this, as you say impressive.

And keep this in mind, for all the talk from the club and anyone else who confidently and stridently brays "Redeveloping Goodison simply isn't an option" there are very few (if any) actual reasons given.

Our board (like Peter Jamieson) believe "it's true because I said it".

Apart from the obvious financial problems we have, our biggest problem is lack of imagination.

Patrick Murphy's post (894) might not provide any solutions, in fact it might be nonsense, however imo it shows EXACTLY the kind of thinking we need.

This board unfortunately are simply not capable of it.

Kevin Tully
050 Posted 20/06/2013 at 12:49:15
Paul 043, Yes I remember them at the time, only wish we could have someone like that on our Board - he didn't just offer one option either, clearly we need to re-visit these plans.

Anyone who says redevelopment is not an option, hasn't listened to this guy.

As Matt point out above, we may be at the point with our finances that we are left with room to turn anywhere.

I imagine we would need permission from other financial institutions before we could even start to consider redevelopment.

Don't forget we have taken out mortgages on the ground, and loans on future season ticket sales, so we may not be able to meet these repayments if one side of the ground is out of action for 18 months.

My 'ead hurts just thinking about it.

Tom Hughes
054 Posted 20/06/2013 at 12:32:59
Kevin, at the time of DK, I spoke to various people involved. Surprisingly no-one saw any particularly onerous issues regarding the Bullens Rd stand and its safety certificate etc. Whether that is still the case I don't know.

I don't know of any major structural integrity issues and to be honest the thing is quite heavily over-engineered. Glasgow Rangers invested in their Leitch double decker. ..... turning it into a triple-decker suggesting that these old stands may have much longer lifespans than their modern counterparts. This was a far more problematic redevelopment as the facade is listed and they had to build above and through the existing stand. However, they saw the value in this historic icon and built on it.

We actually have two examples of Leitch's work and an adjoining corner section. If the footprint can be expanded, the upper tiers can be extended and/or boxes added at the rear. I'm not advocating that they must stay at all costs. ..... but they certainly have potential and it could be a very cost-effective angle to exploit. Failing that, a new fully cantilevered upper tier could replace the existing one in time.

Thomas Lennon
056 Posted 20/06/2013 at 13:18:07
The height of the stands isn't the main issue - the footprint is the main issue. To maximise earnings we can't just look at what can be done, it is what should be done that matters.

FAR more space is needed at ground level to meet our competitors on a par. Significant widening of concourses, addition of services, addition of comfortable commercial facilities is needed not just seats. Take a look at both grounds in Manchester, Emirates, even St James from above (use Google Earth) and compare.

Kevin Tully
057 Posted 20/06/2013 at 13:20:23
Thanks Tom, let's hope we something achieved in our lifetime!
Gavin Ramejkis
058 Posted 20/06/2013 at 13:19:42
I still have the email response from the H&S Executive from the time Billy Bullshitter gave the jackanory out about Goodison falling down, there are no specific rules on buildings and structures of the age of GP. Local building regulations regarding fire exits, extinguishers and access are all that's relevant unless the structure becomes physically unsound which again falls to local legislation.
Tom Hughes
062 Posted 20/06/2013 at 13:44:48
Thomas,
Adding height can also add significant floor space too over multiple levels. I showed at the time that a simple expansion of the existing Bullens Rd stand could readily give 500% + increase in concourse area for a modest footprint expansion. Overlapping tiers are very economical on space and not all new stands have excessive footprint. Lounge space could be added on all sides if required.
Jay Harris
065 Posted 20/06/2013 at 14:26:14
There was a study by Ward McHugh, stadium design engineers, on redeveloping GP which is essential reading for anyone doubting the viability of redeveloping GP.

That clearly showed GP could be redeveloped at a cost of £40 million in 2001.

Tom Hughes and Trevor Skempton (who was involved in the St James Park redevelopment) have also made a lot of valuable contributions to this debate.

Peter Foy
067 Posted 20/06/2013 at 15:12:21
I wonder what the cost would be today to re-develop Goodison?

Ward McHugh's Godison Park Redevelopment Concept

Maybe someone from the Shareholders Association should find out?

Eric Myles
076 Posted 20/06/2013 at 15:33:17
Peter #014, enabling partners, naming rights, or what happened to the £78 million the board were going to have to find for Desperation Kirkby?
Eric Myles
079 Posted 20/06/2013 at 15:55:03
Kevin #50, what 18 months for one side?

18 months total maybe but it all doesn't have to be done in one go.

Kevin Tully
081 Posted 20/06/2013 at 16:03:49
Never seen that before Peter, thanks - All the evidence you need ;

The commission involved carrying out a study to compare the feasibility of redeveloping the existing Stadium, against the relocation to a site outside the City boundaries.

A detailed design study, financial plan and phasing programme was produced which provided a compelling argument for an affordable phased redevelopment.

The study promoted the concept of a partnership between the Football Club, City Council and local community as a means of ensuring the redevelopment would kick-start the economic and physical regeneration of a part of Liverpool’s inner city area.

Jay Harris
085 Posted 20/06/2013 at 16:16:03
Just came across another link in my archives:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/72553913?access_key=key-1jo7sgr3hgsmvcaru1yi

Eric Myles
093 Posted 20/06/2013 at 16:33:28
http://www.scribd.com/doc/38748913/Goodison-Park-development-Design-Access-Statement

There's plenty of feasibiity studies around that say redevelopment can be done, it's only the board that say it can't.

Eric Myles
094 Posted 20/06/2013 at 16:40:54
oops, posted the same link twice there, try this one

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2259978/Goodison-For-Everton-Study

Kevin Tully
104 Posted 20/06/2013 at 17:25:22
Those look like seriously deliverable projects guys. Some guesswork from me;

Stadium naming rights over 10 years — £50m;

Rights issue — £20m;

Advance corporate and middle tier sponsorship — £10-15m

All deliverable within a 4-year period, that's without any regeneration funding that may be available.

Has this been presented to the dickheads?

Peter Foy
110 Posted 20/06/2013 at 18:22:57
I'm sure the last comment from the club regarding redevelopment was from Robert Elstone who informed us that it would cost £700M to do. He used Chelsea as an example.

Basically, he was saying it is never going to happen. In my opinion, this is because 'our friend of the club' still wants his retail development.

Jay Harris
114 Posted 20/06/2013 at 18:51:18
Kevin
I'm pretty sure Tom Hughes and/or Trevor Skempton presented proposals to Elstone who dismissed renovating GP by saying "it would be too expensive".

For that read "it will not pay Earl and Green enough".

Paul Andrews
116 Posted 20/06/2013 at 18:55:55
With a proper chairman and board, we could develop our stadium, the manager could then develop the playing squad with the extra revenue generated.

Instead, we are stuck with an inept, unimaginative, rabbit-frozen-in-the-headlights admin. Kevin described them perfectly at post 104.

Kevin Tully
121 Posted 20/06/2013 at 18:55:05
I remember him saying the only way forward was a retail-led development Jay.

But if those Ward-McHugh costings are even close, I can't see the problem with redevelopment.

Companies would be falling over themselves for naming rights to a new stadium in the Premier League.

Arsenal have just signed a 5-year extension for £30m a season! I think £5m a season naming rights are a very conservative estimate, even if it meant Chang sponsoring the stadium as well as the shirts.

We could also follow the Club Wembley model for 5- or 10-year leases on corporate boxes, and sponsor inside lounges etc.

It doesn't even seem we would need local funding, but LCC would probably help with local regeneration costs.

Where there's a will there's a way I suppose, but I am surprised they wouldn't consider this even as an exit strategy — the club would be worth a fortune!

Jay Harris
133 Posted 20/06/2013 at 19:34:57
Kevin
I have advocated a rights issue for years but the powers that be will not hear of it.

For a £15 million rights issue I am told we can put an extra tier on the Park End increasing capacity and the number of corporate suites.

I guess the "other operating costs" are too lucrative for "friends of Everton" until they can cash in big time on a new stadium development.

Paul Andrews
161 Posted 20/06/2013 at 20:59:08
The one bonus is that more and more fans are finally seeing through the lies they have been fed for years. The Kenwright disciples on here have gone very quiet since the links to stadium development have been posted. It is amazing how easily fans have swallowed the outrageous spin. Some of them on here seem intelligent people, yet they are easily fooled by a bit of PR shite.
Peter Jamieson
163 Posted 20/06/2013 at 21:08:57
Eugene 046

"Apart from the obvious financial problems we have, our biggest problem is lack of imagination."

Imagine up around 50 odd million then and crack on fella.

Phil Walling
165 Posted 20/06/2013 at 21:06:19
THEY will never go for a rights issue because of the diminuation of their of their holding percentage and they certainly wouldn`t be prepared to invest to maintain it.

However, huge pressure could be applied by BU if they adopted this as their cause... and at least it would disprove those who say the Blue Union only exists to cry `Kenwright Out`. Although it might just have that effect!

Peter Jamieson
167 Posted 20/06/2013 at 21:12:18
Paul

"With a proper chairman and board we could develop our stadium, the manager could then develop the playing squad with the extra revenue generated."

So we would need money to develop the stadium, on top of the annual money required to add to the squad and pay wages.

Then whilst developing the stadium we have loss of income for several years, so we would need to compensate for that.

Then when we have completed the redevelopment we need to pay back the, undoubted loans because no one in their right mind would invest in us.

So yes, 10 years down the line we can give the manager the extra revenue.

Patrick Murphy
169 Posted 20/06/2013 at 21:29:30
On the other hand, Peter, we just carry on down the path we are on which will all end in tears if we have a few bad seasons or even if we maintain our current league position. The owners are at fault and after they are long gone the club will be crippled for a good 25 years, the number of youngsters supporting the blues will reduce, the older generation will stop going through ill-health or worse and the club will always have a long and illustrious history and no future worth talking about.
Paul Andrews
170 Posted 20/06/2013 at 21:35:02
Peter,

I thought you would be the first disciple to bite.

Peter Jamieson
173 Posted 20/06/2013 at 21:36:49
Patrick,

I really hope I'm wrong, but the scenario you paint may well be what happens unless some idiot with £200 million or so comes in and buys the club and either builds a new ground or redevelops GP.

But the fact is (and Eugene is big on facts) we know such a person does not exist.

The only point I'm making, and you can all shoot me down again, is that the DK project was the only realistic chance we had of getting a new ground – without a sugar daddy.

One chance we have is if the current board make a gift of the club to any that will build a new stadium or fully redevelop GP. Even then they will still have the debt to deal with.

But we know BK won't do that.

So in short, nothing will change and we'll probably go back to enjoying last day of the season miracles, circa the mid-90s.

Phil Walling
174 Posted 20/06/2013 at 21:39:45
You are right, Patrick, that if there is no early redemption clause in those BVI long-term loans, whoever owns the Club is fucked for years to come.

It seems Blue Bill and his chums have mortgaged Everton`s future as well as its present!

But somebody is doing well out of these arrangements... I wonder who?

Richard Dodd
177 Posted 20/06/2013 at 22:04:11
Wally; like a lot of people, I have a mortgage with years to run. If I lose my job or for any other reason my income falls away, then I too am fucked. But I don`t spend my life worrying about it.

That`s why BB doesn`t & won`t lose any sleep about those BVI loans. As long as the managers of the football club can keep us in the Prem, the income to pay the exorbitant interest rates will be maintained.

As long as he chooses those managers well, he really could have the job for life!

Eugene Ruane
180 Posted 20/06/2013 at 22:11:07
Peter Jamieson (163) - "Imagine up around 50 odd million then and crack on fella".

A trite and predictable response but there's an element of truth in what you say.

With the board we have, 'imagining' large sums of money is almost certainly the closest we'll get to a creative solution.

A while back I posted the following and it seems relevant here.

Our problem is (of course) our board.

But what EXACTLY is their problem?

My belief is it can be boiled down to 'lack of imagination'.

That might sound like a stating the bleeding obvious, but I'd like to go a little further.

There is something strange and mysterious about imagination and creativity in relation to our species.

What is strange is that it is the one attribute EVERYONE believes they possess.

It's strange how it works

I have seen people almost boast about their own LACK of prowess in areas like car mechanics or house electrics etc.

I bet you have all heard - "Electrics...Me? I'm useless, I can't even change a plug/lightbulb, ho ho ho".

And when a car breaks down, a few might give it a go, but most immediately contact a garage.

It seems anything that takes specialised tools/equipment (possiblly combined with overalls with a logo on the pocket) and it's 'Best leave it to the experts' - which makes perfect sense.

Creativity however is COMPLETELY different.

The first problem is, it looks easy.

No special gear and it all (for the most part) happens inside someone's head.

And then look at the meffs that do it - pony tails, twatty-rimmed specs, scruffs, really, how hard can it be?

I'm convinced the same people boasting about their uselessness at mechanics/electrics would never be heard saying "I have virtually NO imagination, not a single fucking creative bone in my body".

In fact if you were to suggest this to them, I guarantee they would be offended.

Think about this - out there, there are highly paid interior-designers who study colour, light, shade, materials and space - they are experts.

Do we employ them to make the spaces we live in more desirable?

The wealthy and celebs occasionally might, but generally, do we fuck.

Instead, all over the world, people with NO expertise, using the logic 'how fuckin' hard can it be?' set to work on the interiors of their own homes.

And when they're done, you rarely hear "Yeah did it meself, looks like a blind, insane, pissed Australian's nightmare doesn't it!".

No, instead, people stand there hands on hips surveying their handywork and tell you "Yeah we're quite pleased with how the heliotrope goes with the maroon" etc.

It's just a quirky human...thing.

Everyone thinks they're creative and everyone thinks they have imagination.

Now generally, this is absolutely fine and harms nobody,

If you want your living room to look like complete cack, fine, go for it - in fact you might get lucky and it might not look too horrible, plus you'll save a few nicker and as I say, you're not harming anyone.

However you ARE harming others if you have no imagination and you're running a business, because when it comes to trying to generate revenue/profit, your inability to think in anything other than straight lines is limiting in the extreme.

THIS is the problem we have and it is affecting (and has affected) us VERY badly.

I genuinely believe many of our problems COULD be helped/improved/sorted out with a few really good, PROVEN creative people/problem-solvers.

People who can take problems that seemingly have no solution and find one.

People who could take minuses and make them plusses, they ARE out there.

Is it a shitty old ground or (as Tom and Patrick suggest) a 'real, proper football stadium'?

Do we have an old badge that needs 'moving forward' or a badge steeped in history that, if designed well and put on the right shirt, would sell tens of thousands?

The people 'running' our club are doing one of two things (or a combination of both).

1) Not hiring good people because they don't have the imagination to know who the good people are.

2) Hiring good people and not listening to them because they think they know a better solution (see 'how hard can it be?').

And there's more bad news - BECAUSE those in charge have no imagination, If nobody buys us, there is no real solution (nb: as Peter's constant flow of insight-free posts show, none-geniuses don't suddenly become geniuses).

Anyone who has worked in a situation where the boss knows fucking everything (and won't let those he/she employs do 'their thing') will understand the 'choice' is..

a) Wait for the boss to die.

b) Wait for the boss to retire.

c) You move to another company.

And we don't have c) as an option.

I know, depressing as fuck.

Support the BU!

Kevin Tully
182 Posted 20/06/2013 at 23:00:40
Actually Eugene, they did manage to appoint the right guy once, but he left after 6 weeks!!!!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/15051909

Kevin Tully
183 Posted 20/06/2013 at 23:12:07
Old news but gives everyone a reminder of why we are now in this position ;

Trevor Birch yesterday resigned as Everton's chief executive after only six weeks in the post, frustrated at perceived restrictions placed on him by members of the board and which he felt prevented him from doing his job.

The Merseyside club had turned to Birch to help eat into debts approaching £40m, after his success in similar roles at Chelsea and Leeds. Birch suggested the best way the club could revive would be to find an outside buyer and is understood to have grown exasperated that his advice was rejected by the board.

Instead, he proved to be the victim of an ongoing power struggle between the chairman Bill Kenwright and the director Paul Gregg, who went public yesterday hoping to instil changes at the club in a bid to attract new investors. Birch, who did not enjoy a good relationship with the manager David Moyes but had mustered funds to offer Wayne Rooney a five-year deal worth £50,000-a-week, went on holiday yesterday and was not available for comment.

"I am obviously disappointed that things did not work out and I am very sad to see him leave," said Kenwright. Everton are now seeking a successor, though any replacement is likely to be handicapped by in-house politics.

The root of the board's problem appears to be a growing split between Kenwright and Gregg, who joined in March 1999. The pair worked together to buy the club, forming True Blue Holdings which owns more than 70% of Everton and in which all four board members hold shares. Gregg has made it clear he would prefer True Blue's shareholding to be diluted into that of Everton Football Club Co Ltd, with Kenwright opposed to that plan.

"At the moment, investors could put money into the club but still not have a voice in how it goes forward if they are not part of True Blue," said Gregg, who did not attend a home game last season. "We need to make it easier for people to bring money and new ideas into the club.

"I believe there are maybe two or three seriously wealthy people on Merseyside who want to invest but would only do that if they could present their own views on how the club should be run, which would mean places on the board."

Eugene Ruane
184 Posted 20/06/2013 at 23:12:55
Kevin (182) - "Actually Eugene, they did manage to appoint the right guy once, but he left after 6 weeks!!!!

Then they got a few rolls of flock wallpaper, a bucket of paste and proceeded to do the job themselves.

Looks lovely though!

Gavin Ramejkis
190 Posted 21/06/2013 at 00:36:07
Peter you keep drumming this nonsense "the DK project was the only realistic chance we had of getting a new ground - without a sugar daddy" — Who was going to pay the £78m and counting for it??

It wasn't free, the subsidies were proven in court to be a lie solely to the benefit of the shareholders thus breaching their duty of care as Directors of a Company, as Christine has already detailed earlier in another thread.

Eric Myles
194 Posted 21/06/2013 at 01:46:56
Peter #167 "Then whilst developing the stadium we have loss of income for several years, so we would need to compensate for that."

Read the links posted, especially the Tom Hughes study and you'll realise how wrong that statement is.

Ged Simpson
199 Posted 21/06/2013 at 06:12:48
Eugene – I often like your posts but Jesus... #180 took a week while to get to the point!
Derek Thomas
200 Posted 21/06/2013 at 06:57:16
Eric #198 I think, like most of us, the decorator that Eugene uses is, for the bit that involves the roller, himself and again like most of us the Wife picks all the colours ( no we can't have every other colour Blue and White ).

We can only hope that Jenny takes control and leave Bill to do the bit with the roller.

Paul Andrews
206 Posted 21/06/2013 at 09:12:08
Peter "I am no fan of this board"Jamieson and Dan Brierley.

Can you show any reason why this board should not be fucked from pillar to post for the lies, missed opportunities and abject failure to carry the club forward?

Please give vindication for the financial state we find ourselves in. Please give the same for the fact we cannot approach any bank for loans because we are mortgaged to the gills, having flogged the family silver.

The same please for why we find ourselves going cap in hand to loan sharks for loans at exhorbitant interest rates.

You both being "non-supporters" of the Chairman and his board may find it easy to point the above out. Feel free to do so.

Brian Waring
212 Posted 21/06/2013 at 10:32:36
One thing I have never been able to get my head round in regards to BK's tenure, is how he is given so much leeway with some of our fans, surely it can't all be down to all this 'true blue' 'one of us' shite?

IMO, Peter Johnson did more for us as a chairman than BK ever has, but Johnson was absolutely torn to bits.

Phil Bellis
225 Posted 21/06/2013 at 12:02:25
Now, now, boys - stop all this shouting; it's lovely day, go and play outside

The shouting issue:

Might I, respectfully, suggest that posters adopt the Arabic Romanesque Syntactical Emphasis (ARSE) standard and use braces ("curly brackets") to indicitate {polite} stress within a sentence?
Thank you

Peter Jamieson
228 Posted 21/06/2013 at 12:18:57
Paul - 206

"Peter "I am no fan of this board"Jamieson and Dan Brierley. Can you show any reason why this board should not be fucked from pillar to post for the lies, missed opportunities and abject failure to carry the club forward." — No... are you going to do the fucking by the way?

"Please give vindication for the financial state we find ourselves in." — Our financial state started under several previous boards as well as this one. The lack of investment in the club goes back decades and was continued by the current group.

"Please give the same for the fact we cannot approach any bank for loans because we are mortgaged to the gills having flogged the family silver." — Well, when you got no investment, modest income, and you're not prepared to sell or use your own money, then you're going to borrow and mortgage and sell. I suppose we could just not spend any money on players ever again, sell all our best players, we could then reduce our debt, possibly nearly wipe it off. then we may have a chance of selling the club.

Would anyone want a Championship club with a shitty ground?

"The same please for why we find ourselves going cap in hand to loan sharks for loans at exhorbitant interest rates." — Well when the banks wont give you anymore money....... There's always Wonga.com

"You both being "non-supporters" of the Chairman and his board may find it easy to point the above out. Feel free to do so"


Like I've said, they should do the honourable thing and give the club away to a new owner that would be committed to either building a new ground or developing GP. It would still be difficult because of the debt, but they seriously cannot ask for a fee for selling the club, they'll never sell it.

Ste Traverse
230 Posted 21/06/2013 at 12:21:57
I treat 'Delusional Dan' as the joke he is since his ridiculous pro-DK posts a few years ago when he was right and all the criticis of that project were wrong in his deluded eyes.
Paul Andrews
239 Posted 21/06/2013 at 13:05:53
Peter Jamieson, "are you going to do the fucking by the way?" — I have been known to on occasion.

"It is not only this board's fault, other boards were the same." = See that mugger over there with that gang of muggers, he is a horrible cunt, but they all are, so he`s not too bad.

Dan Brierley
243 Posted 21/06/2013 at 12:59:56

Paul 206, the vindication is simple. Have a look at the growth of Premier League debt since 2002, and then perhaps you will understand the nature of our business. If we hadn't accumulated the debt through player acquisition and constant increases of wage caps, we would not be playing in the Premier League. It's really that simple.

But of course you can decide that Everton is a business and run it to make profit at the expense of your playing staff, or you can decide Everton is a Football Club and run it to put every penny you can (and more) onto the playing field in a hope of being the best team.

Admittedly the best solution is to make profits and fund your acquisitions and overhead increases but, as I have already pointed out via the debt of the entire PL itself, nobody appears to be able to do that and either take loans or pump their own money in.

I knew BK had no money when he arrived, so I have never had this expectation that he is going to just give us money. My only wish at that time was that he steadies our club as it looked like we were only delaying inevitable relegation in the latter years of Johnson. And in hiring and sticking with David Moyes when he could have been sacked a few times, has reaped obvious benefits.

Since DK was exposed for the farce it was, I have felt it was time for a new owner. But after seeing what new ownership has done to West Ham, Portsmouth, Villa, Blackburn, Liverpool etc. I am under no illusions that we need a billionaire if we are ever to challenge for the Premier League title again. And as only City and Chelsea have been able to find this kind of ownership, I can understand why it is a huge challenge.

As I have stated before, I would hate BK a lot more for selling our club to someone that just fucked us over, and resulted in selling all our top players. The ironic thing is, I would have jumped for joy had Lerner decided to take us over. After seeing Villa sell all their top players without any replacement and nearly getting relegated last season, I am now thinking we dodged a bullet.

Jay Harris
245 Posted 21/06/2013 at 13:43:08
Peter, you do continuously dig holes for yourself.

The much hated Peter Johnson invested £15 million of his own money and built the Park End stand.

He also left Kenwright with £20 million in assets despite only receiving £20 million for his shares.

Kenwright has magnificently turned that into £40 million in debts at a time when record income is flowing into the Premier League and has never invested a single penny of his own money into the club.

It takes balls and vision to run a Premier League club these days and Kenwright is severely lacking in both — preferring to hide behind lies, deceit and stooges.

Dan Brierley
246 Posted 21/06/2013 at 13:59:11
Jay, regarding the 5,750 capacity Park End, do you honestly believe that was a good business move compared to the Kop (12,000) or the Holte End (13,000)? I think we as a club fucked up with the Park End, it should have been a lot bigger, especially considering it is the only stand backing onto a car park.
Eric Myles
248 Posted 21/06/2013 at 14:03:59
Peter #228 "I suppose we could just not spend any money on players ever again, sell all our best players, we could then reduce our debt, possibly nearly wipe it off. then we may have a chance of selling the club."

That's exactly what some TWebbers on here are advocating as the only way forward!!

Eric Myles
249 Posted 21/06/2013 at 14:10:48
Dan #243 "I am under no illusions that we need a billionaire if we are ever to challenge for the Premier League title again. And as only City and Chelsea have been able to find this kind of ownership, I can understand why it is a huge challenge"

Your argument sort of falls to bits then when you consider United and Arsenal have won the Premier League more times than those 2

Jay Harris
250 Posted 21/06/2013 at 14:07:26
Dan
it is easy to be wiser with hindsight but at the time our gates were lower than they are now with average attendances being below 35000 right up to 1996 and at least some effort and investment was made.

Johnson was also actively looking for a new stadium but listened to the GFE (Goodison Foreverton movement) and was considering plans for developing Goodison.

I also believe the Park End development was done with future expansion in mind.

Kevin Tully
254 Posted 21/06/2013 at 14:24:39
We have been offered investment, there have also been offers to purchase the club.

BK & pals won't let go, either he is still in hock for his original shares, and other Board members do not want to sell, or a mixture of both. There is also the fact they can still walk away with tens of millions of profit, why dilute that?

Wyness has said it, and Birch has confirmed it.

If you don't believe it by now, fine, but I would wonder why.

Eric Myles
255 Posted 21/06/2013 at 14:20:53
The new Stanley Park End stand is a single tier cantilever stand with a capacity of 6,000.
The completion of the Park End brought Goodison Park's capacity up to 40,100, a figure exceeded at the time by only the projected capacities of Old Trafford and Anfield, neither of which were in such a confined area as Goodison Park.

But why compare Anfield's home end to our away end? Compare like for like with the kop at 9,000 capacity and Gwladys St 10,600.

Steve Cotton
259 Posted 21/06/2013 at 14:27:01
Eugene 180

With regard to your statement about no imagination, sadly these directors of ours have become rich men because they have good imaginations and usually good business brains; however, with regard to their investment in us, they are all aiming to get as much back for as little in... primarily because only one of them is a blue at heart and he has very little money and a huge chip on his shoulder.

Some of the people who own a large number of shares in EFC are at the tipping point where they can see that only investment will help the club but to break into the top 4 you need huge investment and they might as well stick and not twist... we're fucked mate.

On the other hand LFC look like they will be spending approx £50 mill this summer and their aim is to get into the top 6..

Dan Brierley
261 Posted 21/06/2013 at 14:29:40
Eric 249 old bean, so how much investment do you think we need in order to challenge for the title on a consistent basis?

And feel free to have a look at how much money the Glaziers and Stan Kroenke both have and come back to me if they are not somehow billionaires. And for the record, Chelsea and Arsenal have both won 3 PL's so you are wrong yet again.

Eric Myles
269 Posted 21/06/2013 at 14:50:11
So Dan you are admitting you were wrong in saying only Chelsea and City have Billionaire owners?

So United 12 + Arsenal 3 is less than Chelsea 3 + City 1 in your maths is it?

Beside your implication was that billionaire owners are needed to pump money into their clubs (by citing Chelsea and City as examples) whereas the owners of United and Arsenal are NOT pumping money into their clubs, yet are winning more trophies.

AND as another refutation of your argument, Arsenal have not won a title since Kroenke took over, so having a billionaire owner is hardly helping them, is it?

Dan Brierley
273 Posted 21/06/2013 at 15:19:04
Fuck me Eric this is pulling teeth! if I need to explain to you the difference between United's & Arsenal's owners vs City's & Chelsea's in terms of which way they operate, there is something clearly wrong.

Back to he point though: I believe we need upwards of £200 million to start competing for the title again, in both infrastructure and playing staff. This would take a billionaire to fund, as he won't be getting anything back from it for a very long time. It's not an investment, it's basically giving us money à la Chelsea & City (perhaps you now understand the point).

So here you have it, now is your chance to make me see the error of my ways. How much do you think we need, and how would it be funded?

Eugene Ruane
275 Posted 21/06/2013 at 15:18:44
Steve (259) - Well I certainly agree we're fucked.

My post on imagination is not 'rich = no imagination'.

I appreciate there are many wealthy people who are wealthy as a direct result of their imagination.

On the flip side though, I believe (and it's just an opinion) that we live in an age where many equate money with some sort of intelligence.

I once heard Katie Price described as 'as thick as shite', only for someone to respond 'well she can't be that stupid' while making the thumb and two fingers gesture for 'got a few bob'.

I thought of COURSE she can - what does being rich have to do with intelligence?

Alan Sugar is very wealthy but is as thick as mince (and imo, cheese has more imagination).

Jade Goody ended up making a few mill but would have been battered at Trivial Pursuit by her own shoes.

For me, it's far more likely that the rich become the rich because there is a burning desire to be rich and many don't give a shite how it happens.

I don't know how best to maximise the few 'assets' we have, but I am absolutely convinced there are people 'out there' who could do a load better than BK and our board.

Andrew Ellams
276 Posted 21/06/2013 at 15:39:52
Pure bloody minded awkwardness for the sake of argument on this thread too.

Eric, it's blatantly obvious that Dan's point is Man Utd and Arsenal, despite having billionaire owners are run like businesses and Man City and Chelsea are run like owners play things throwing obscene amounts of money to see their train sets come out on top (see also PSG and Monaco). Do you really not get this or are you just arguing for the sake of it?

Eric Myles
277 Posted 21/06/2013 at 15:44:49
Dan #273 I doubt you could explain to me the difference between United's & Arsenal's owners vs City's & Chelsea's in terms of which way they operate, because it's obvious from your posts you think because they are all billionaires they operate the same way.
Eric Myles
278 Posted 21/06/2013 at 15:49:17
Andrew #276, Dan makes no mention anywhere as to how he thinks United or Arsenal are run.

He only mentions that the only teams winning the title are City and Chelsea because they have billionaire owners "throwing obscene amounts of money at their train sets" , something which is blatently wrong.

Brian Waring
292 Posted 21/06/2013 at 16:43:40
Eugene, think the other thing is that the likes of Katie Price, Jade Goody etc, probalby had people with good business acumen behind them. If only we had people like that at the club!
Paul Andrews
294 Posted 21/06/2013 at 16:55:35
Dan Brierley

When you say in your post at #243. "Look at the growth in debt on the Premier League since 2002, then perhaps you will understand our business" — What do you mean by "our business"?

Are you in the football business by any chance.

John Audsley
313 Posted 21/06/2013 at 18:01:42
It's pretty clear to me that the Board's only plan is to SELL and make shit loads of cash. No investment or planning from any of Kenwright, Earl and Woods. No one is buying Everton however... other clubs get sold but weirdly not us and we only ever get a wiff of a rumour around season ticket renewal time.

So, the Board's only plan is to sell but something MASSIVE is putting off any potential buyer. Is it debt or the stadium or does good olde Bluey just not want to sell? It's his train set and in his mind the majority of the fans and media love him so why bother? What else is he going to do at 3pm on a Saturday??

Trust me, he will be dead by the time this club changes hands.

Ste Traverse
372 Posted 21/06/2013 at 21:43:40
Priceless post from Dan Brierley #243.

I quote.....

"Since DK was exposed for the farce it was"

Bloody hell, the cheek of the bloke considering Brierley defended DK to the hilt to it's critics on TW in the lead-up to that joke of a project being chucked out, now he's saying it was a farce.

Unbelievable stuff, Dan.

Mike Green
406 Posted 22/06/2013 at 07:23:56
Barry #764

"If you put an original classic Ferrari up for sale needing an engine rebuild, complete paint job and interior refurb, the phone will ring off the hook – as long as the price reflects."

What a cracking analogy that is, perfect.

Now, BK may respond by saying 'Yes... well I did it – they were all chancers and crooks, just looking to use it as a plaything, strip the parts and sit on it until they could sell it on again at a huge profit...."

....... as he puts the phone down and returns to the bar where Earl and Green sit, laughing.

Paul Andrews
418 Posted 22/06/2013 at 09:46:12
Mike,

They all do it.
Look at Dan Brierley's post above.

I am desperate for a buyer .......but look at (names 5 or 6 clubs) it didn't work out for them OR .....he won't just sell to anyone, it will have to be the right person for this club. Etc etc.

Play the "we are Everton card" that will get them all emotional and stop the protests.

Dan Brierley
428 Posted 22/06/2013 at 10:20:05
Ste 372, what is so hard to understand about it? Myself and many other fans supported a move away from Goodison. In fact I seem to remember it was put to a vote, and ended up around 60-40 supporting the move. However once the transport details became known, it was clearly something that had not been thought through at all.

I would still support a move away form Goodison today Ste, nothing has changed on that front.

Paul Andrews
439 Posted 22/06/2013 at 12:00:43
Dan,
What do your colleagues in the "football business" think of the proposed move?
Gavin Ramejkis
441 Posted 22/06/2013 at 12:15:42
Dan the whole thing about the vote besides the blatant flaws and missing votes was the premise of it was based on lies, lies which we're exposed before people voted. In that knowledge, how do you explain your vote for? Nothing wrong or anything to do with a move from Goodison to a new stadium by the way, purely on the basis of the tissue of translucent lies DK was sold on.
Dan Brierley
445 Posted 22/06/2013 at 12:47:32
Paul, I asked the board your question personally when I was in the secret command bunker underneath Goodison Park, and they said tell Paul Andrews that they think a move is a wonderful idea as it will mean they can sell their shares for double the value.

On a side note, stop being a tit. I have nothing at all to do with Everton Football Club, apart from being a fan like yourself. Last time I checked this is a footy website, not a formal club discussion forum.

Gav, I didn't vote as I was living in China at the time.

Paul Andrews
447 Posted 22/06/2013 at 13:11:50
By the way Dan, I never said you had anything to do with Everton Football Club.
You said in a previous post " if you look at the debt growth,perhaps you may understand the nature of our business".

I asked what you meany by "our business" I am still waiting for an answer.

Dan Brierley
449 Posted 22/06/2013 at 13:20:51
Paul, I amazed that I have to explain something so simple. But as you seem to be challenged in your understanding, I will take the time to explain to you.

When I say 'our business', 'our ground', 'our club', I am referring to Everton Football Club. I use ours, as we are all Everton supporters. It would sound weird to call Everton 'their' business, even if technically the board do own it.

And Finally:"By the way Dan, I never said you had anything to do with Everton Football Club."

There is no need to be a shithouse, and now try and back track that you didn't mean or insinuate that, due to my views, I must work for or somehow be connected to the club. Be a man, Paul, and have the balls to say what you mean. I imagine next is going to come the notion that I am not an Everton fan, because I am not from Liverpool. I have heard it all before, Paul. Anybody that has an alternative view must be a club plant. Failing that, they are not an Evertonian for 'x' reason.

Considering I am so full of shit and obviously wrong on everything, it's amazing the effort that some of you put in to try and discredit my point of view. And the extremes you go to, such as suggesting I must work for the club! Why make up lies? Same applies to anybody else that seems to speak out and challenge the entrenched views of many of you.

Like I said, this is a footy website. Why the need to take it so serious? I don't remember Evertonians being like this in the pubs or ground when I used to go to the match week-in, week-out.

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
462 Posted 22/06/2013 at 14:44:24
Paul, I'm afraid Dan's right in that you are being a bit of a tit. Jumping on "our business" in the way that you did was very poor.
Paul Andrews
463 Posted 22/06/2013 at 14:47:48
Fair enough Michael.
Looking at the fevered response from Dan your probably right.
I stand corrected and apologise accordingly.
Paul Andrews
464 Posted 22/06/2013 at 14:49:49
Any chance you could reinstate my post pointing out the contradictions in Dan's post at 449?
Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
467 Posted 22/06/2013 at 15:11:27
Sorry, Paul, but it's just point-scoring.

Debate the topic by all means... although it looks like you've all driven into the brick wall that is our intransigent immovable Board of Directors.

I fully understand the desire to see us sold... but I fully understand the concern over who buys us. As it is, the answer seems to be "no-one in their right mind is going to by Everton FC" — another brick wall!

Ste Traverse
483 Posted 22/06/2013 at 16:06:11
Dan, don't try to wriggle out of it. You supported DK all the way through to it's collapse, regardless of transport issues, as I clashed with you on here many times over the doomed scheme.

You backed it and now are trying to say you didn't and it was a farce. Laughable.

Stu Smith
488 Posted 22/06/2013 at 16:42:58
Forgive me if I dreamt it but wasnt it only 3 months ago that SSN had a reporter outside Goodison Park as there was news of a take over?? That news seems to have died a death! In reality EFC would be cheaper without a new stadium to a buyer.
Paul Andrews
490 Posted 22/06/2013 at 16:47:58
Fair enough Michael.

I will debate the point with Dan and the others with opposite views all day.
As you say Dan "why the need to take it so serious" That was just after you took it very serious in the same post..".shithouse...have the balls to say what you mean."..etc etc.
Anyway back to the non serious stuff......;-)

Colin Wainwright
502 Posted 22/06/2013 at 17:42:31
TBH Paul, it is serious and you are right to question the likes of Dan Brierley. You make a good point. I've seen people questioned on this very website because they only talk about the running of the club, rather than how Seamus performed, or Fellaini's new hairdo. Personally, I talk about the actual football with my mates. Toffeweb, for me, is a forum to discuss the bigger issues affecting our club, and thank christ it is there.

Dan is backtracking. I remember how he vehemently defended Kirby, at the time. Will never forget it.

Kevin Tully
503 Posted 22/06/2013 at 17:55:52
Stu 448 – if you remember when Moyes announced he was leaving, Billy liar came out with one of his stock phrases "Yeah, there's been someone else making enquiries this week."

The club is priced and financed so that no sane person would even come near to the asking price. They won't accept diluting their shares, either by investment, or a rights issue.

He is treating every supporter of this club with total contempt. If we can't get a loan, the Board will sell a player, if they can't sell a player,they will sell an asset, and so the vicious circle continues.

They have no intention of taking this club forward, investing, or even the beginning of a plan to get us out of the mess we now find ourselves in.

Kenwright will do all he can to keep control of this club, until he thinks he can go no further. Unfortunately, some of our fanbase would sit in a crumbling Goodison in a hundred years time, saying "Look at Blackburn now though" after BK had long put this club into administration.

Colin Wainwright
506 Posted 22/06/2013 at 18:20:46
Kevin. Spot on.
Tony Marsh
507 Posted 22/06/2013 at 18:08:37
Because the board at EFC are such a bunch of incompetent twats the only way we will ever get to play in a new stadium in this city is if we get a bunk up from the Council and the Shite agree to share with us. All the rest of the options put forward are non-starters regardless of how good they may be.

Kenwright and his board members are as much use to us for finance as Michael Knighton was to Man Utd. BK is the ultimate Arthur Daley football chairman: big on spiel and bluster but with very little substance to any of it. Kenwright flaunts with the truth and dabbles in bits of skullduggery yet never seems to get taken to task over it. Moyes was once a shield for Weepy Bill yet Bill has evolved in to a survivor by his own means.

Twice Bill Kenwright has been involved in very shady new stadium business and twice it's gone tits-up and each time he has remained in charge? Can anyone really trust him or want him involved in a third new ground deal?

As long as BK and his muppet pals call the shots at our club, all we can hope for is that the LCC bail us out with some freebies and joint ownership shared status. The rest is just pie in the sky.

Jay Harris
509 Posted 22/06/2013 at 18:26:31
Stu #448 do you mind if I rephrase your post from:

"Forgive me if I dreamt it but wasnt it only 3 months ago that SSN had a reporter outside Goodison Park as there was news of a take over?? That news seems to have died a death! In reality EFC would be cheaper without a new stadium to a buyer"

To:
Forgive me if I dreamt it but wasnt it only 3 months ago that SSN had a reporter outside Goodison Park as there was news of a take over?? That news seems to have died a death! In reality EFC SHOULD be cheaper without a new stadium to a buyer".

And therein lies the problem.

The parasites are 1- 0 up right now but I feel their time is coming.

Let's see what the EGM brings.

Paul Andrews
510 Posted 22/06/2013 at 18:30:36
Kevin,

Don't forget Portsmouth. They are one of the favourites they refer to.

As in: "Pompey won a trophy – look at them now."

Mike Green
512 Posted 22/06/2013 at 18:23:21
Kevin #503. - 'If we can't get a loan, the Board will sell a player, if they can't sell a player,they will sell an asset, and so the vicious circle continues.'

Spot on. They are treading water in the hope that Moyes, now Martinez, gets us into the top 4 and then they (I mean the group behind BK more than BK himself if Im totally honest) can maximize their investment.

Meanwhile, there are weights on our ankles which will take us down if Martinez doesn't overperform, something they have never managed to do for the club.

Lenny Kingman
515 Posted 22/06/2013 at 18:34:04
There are great and memorable moments in EFC history where it looks like we are going forward. Then, it doesn't happen.

The Title in 70 and the Kings Dock debacle. No point in raising the sunken ship that was the Heisel nightmare and subsequent banning from strutting our very worthy stuff at the top table. Through no fault of our own of course.

That was probably as close as we have been to world domination in a football sense.

But it never came to pass. One day there may come a change of fortune that establishes Everton football club back at the forefront of a game we helped to create..

Kevin Tully
516 Posted 22/06/2013 at 18:32:35
Precisely Paul, we are huge club in every way, except where it matters - in the Boardroom.

I read today Chelsea have just signed a £300m deal with Adidas, we wear a Nike strip for nothing. As John Gee said a few days ago, they are getting away with murder because they say they are selling the club, but in reality we all know they have no intentions of selling for a fair price.

We accept any commercial deal which will keep us afloat, we are the equivalent of a business about to drown in a sea of debt, and grab hold of any lifeline there is available.

There is a way out though, redevelop Goodison, sell the naming rights, corporate boxes and sponsorship in advance, raise money with a rights issue and put the whole package out to tender, in the public domain.

It would only mean a dilution in their shareholding, but at least there would be a way forward, instead of waiting for administration, or relegation.

Paul Andrews
519 Posted 22/06/2013 at 18:50:55
Kevin,

A good Blue said to me yesterday when talking about the non sale of the club:

"My house is for sale if someone gives me £300,000...
"It is only worth £150,000 and I don't want to move but........"

I thought that was a good analogy.

Kevin Tully
523 Posted 22/06/2013 at 18:59:26
Paul, when we ask:

"Why don't you fix the roof?"
"Why don't we get a mortgage with better rates?"
"Why the outrageous asking price?"

They give the one answer that they know people cannot disprove: "We are looking 24/7 for a buyer."

It is their 'get out of jail' card, whenever they are pressed for a business plan.

I guarantee they repeat it at the General Meeting coming up.

Peter Jamieson
524 Posted 22/06/2013 at 19:03:33
Kevin - #503

"If we can't get a loan, the Board will sell a player, if they can't sell a player, they will sell an asset, and so the vicious circle continues."

Just what exactly should be done then? What you describe above is the modus opporandi for at least 82 of the 92 league clubs.

Paul Andrews
526 Posted 22/06/2013 at 19:18:44
One thing we can take comfort in when trying to secure a sale, Kevin:

Mr Chairman tells us "rest assured, there is no better salesman for Everton Football Club than me"...

"Next!"

Gavin Ramejkis
527 Posted 22/06/2013 at 19:19:21
Peter, the MO of many a club? This MO of many a club isn't the same.

Everton have several years worth of selling players just to service its debts, other teams sell players for a profit and buy in replacements, right there is a huge glaring difference. Everton sold Bellefield and the money from that went toward a debt not even enough to cover it all.

Just how many £20m players do you think Everton can churn out every season just to service debts?

Paul Andrews
528 Posted 22/06/2013 at 19:23:17
Peter 524,

Can you name another Premier League club in and around us who have sold an asset?

I have no idea if they have, but would be very interested in details if you can provide them.

Eric Myles
529 Posted 22/06/2013 at 19:20:21
Kevin #503 "If we can't get a loan, the Board will sell a player, if they can't sell a player, they will sell an asset, and so the vicious circle continues."

The only assets we have left to sell ARE the players.

Kevin Tully
533 Posted 22/06/2013 at 19:22:28
Peter# 524,

Man Utd are in debt for around £368m at the moment. They have massive interest payment to make every year, along with all this debt. Let me try and explain why this is not a problem:

1. The Glazers have put up personal & commercial guarantees towards this debt, ensuring the interest they pay is not extortionate.

2. The debt is falling year on year – it fell by 16% last year.

3. They will eventually be debt-free, and as the club is valued at anything between £1.5 - 2bn. they have played a blinder!

4. The likes of Arsenal, Spurs etc all have more debt than us, but their commercial revenues all dwarf ours. Arsenal have just signed a £150m deal with Emirates.

5. I don't know whether you noticed, but we couldn't even raise the funds to sign a player in January, although we had a chance of top 4 football.

6. How much have the new owners of Liverpool spent on players since they took over?

You can have all the debt in the world Paul, it depends on how that debt is structured, and whether it is serviceable.

You & I may as well be sitting in the Goodison hot-seat for all the good our Board have done. In fact Peter, I can guarantee I would have found investors by now.

Richard Dodd
535 Posted 22/06/2013 at 19:20:58
What always puzzles me is that we NEVER hear of anybody who has shown serious interest in buying the Club but has been rebuffed. I know when it gets to `due diligence` a confidentiality agreement kicks in but those don`t last for all time... surely?

So is it just that when they hear "£125M" – or whatever – they just go away?

Patrick Murphy
536 Posted 22/06/2013 at 19:43:08
The real question should be how is a club with 35,000 regular visitors and all the income from TV, managing to lose £9 million a year and has been asset-stripped to the bone? That to me doesn't mean we are operating like 80 other clubs; it does, however, seem we are operating closer to the likes of Leeds and Portsmouth.

Be careful what you wish for? I and many other Blues didn't wish to see our club run down to this level with a debt mountain to boot.

Richard Dodd
537 Posted 22/06/2013 at 19:58:29
I guess Kenwright will say that`s the price to pay for maintaining 6/7th in the Prem whilst being stuck at Goodison.....

I know, I know.....but that's what he will say, believe me!

Peter Jamieson
538 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:01:22
Paul,

If you're referring to fixed assets, then no I don't know. I'm not up to speed on all the financial details of all the clubs. I'll bet you though there are many very "creative" deals that are around.

I remember Leeds sold Elland Rd, and rented it back, when they tried to compete in the Premier & Champions Leagues. I'm sure with a bit of research you could fine similar deals all over the place.

Bottom line is, if you have to get money, and you're desperate, what can you do?

Ian Bennett
539 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:06:53
Patrick - they all pretty much lose money. Ours are losses on losses with debt picking up the burden.
Kevin Tully
540 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:01:41
Doddy, Did you read what Paul Gregg and Trevor Birch had to say above?

This is the Trevor Birch who brought a certain Roman Abramovich to Chelsea.

Don't forget, we have had 12 interested parties in one week!!!

A combination of the asking price, poor commercial deals, and being tied in to even longer deals for stadium debentures will put off any potential buyers.

If the asking price was fair, we would have been sold a long time ago - that is if the vendors are willing to sell in the first place!

Gavin Ramejkis
541 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:08:26
Doddy I suggest when they've finished laughing at the £125m and gone as far as due diligence they have all (if any actually exist beyond the fantasy world of BK's furtive imagination and lies) walked away.

Simple public domain credit reports would show the club is in no position to lend from normal routes which would put most serious buyers off. Investors' is a code word abused by BK looking for a free ride with someone else's money; no-one is daft enough to do that either.

Peter Jamieson
542 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:08:17
Kevin

I don't know what point you're trying to make, but you put it perfectly yourself.

Other clubs have better revenues than us; debt isn't an issue if you can service it.

What is one of the downsides of our revenue stream? The ground?

Peter Jamieson
543 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:16:53
Nobody would have touched Man City if they were still at Main Rd.
Brian Waring
546 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:28:04
Peter, one of the downsides of our revenue stream? Having a board consisting of BK and the rest of his cronies.
Paul Andrews
547 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:32:23
Peter Jamieson 538,

Thanks for getting back with that.
To be honest I won't be doing any research as you suggest.
With you posting that 82 of the clubs in the league would as a modus opperandi sell assets I thought you may have had details to hand.

Kevin Tully
550 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:45:56
Peter, I'm sorry but 82 clubs do not sell their assets, borrow at extornionate rates from tax havens, and sell players to pay the banks (on top of directors not investing a penny)

Have you seen what Swansea are achieving after nealy being out of existence 12 years ago?

I have outlined a deliverable plan that would not cost the Board anything. Big construction companies with a surplus of skills in the downturn take projects on like this just to break even.

Gavin Ramejkis
551 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:51:28
Peter there isn't another single club in the EPL which hasn't improved their ground or relocated with one exception and I would be surprised if there are current or former members since 1992 when Sky reinvented the game, I'll let you guess the club...

The associated business model (sic) at Everton is also a massive reason of poor revenue, you could bullet-point list each and compare them to our peers and see a pattern appear very quickly: sponsorship, marketing, merchandising, catering, non-match day revenue, etc...

Peter Jamieson
552 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:49:57
Paul,

No, and far enough you can call me out on that.

But, show me how many clubs trade at a profit in any of the leagues?

How many clubs don't have to sell before they can buy?

How many clubs don't ave to have "creative" deals in regards to mortgaging, selling and renting their property?

Also when it comes to selling...........

Venki's - Blackburn
Carson Yeung - Birmingham
Etc

There's not a queue of billionaires out there just waiting to BK to drop his price (my position remains it should given away. Btw ?)

The level of expectation on this site never fails to amuse me.

Paul Andrews
553 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:55:35
Kevin,

My point exactly. It serves no purpose for posters to make statements like Peter Jamieson that 82 of the league clubs sell assets as a "modus opperandi" when it is patently untrue.

Brian Waring
554 Posted 22/06/2013 at 20:57:52
Peter, the reason why we have no revenue streams is because we don't have a board with any vision. They are just happy plodding along, and as long as we don't get relegated, they will be happy to continue plodding along.
Peter Jamieson
556 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:10:25
Gavin

You 're right, Everton tried to improve, relocate to a new ground a few years ago, but their fans objected and they would rather see them slowly disappear around the u- bend than move 5 miles up the road.

Brian Waring
558 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:14:29
"You 're right, Everton tried to improve, relocate to a new ground a few years ago, but their fans objected and they would rather see them slowly disappear around the u- bend than move 5 miles up the road."

Peter, where was the £78m coming from for DK?

Patrick Murphy
559 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:13:56
Oh come on Peter blaming the supporters for the failings in the boardroom is just a little over the top in my opinion. The fans didn't fail the Public Enquiry the Board of Directors did.
Peter Jamieson
561 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:19:35
Brian,

Who knows? Who cares? Who gives a flying fuck.

We'd have probably already been bought by Sheik Kareem Abdul Jabar.

Peter Jamieson
562 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:25:53
Patrick,

There was a lot of "snobbery" from the fans.

What else is KEIOC?

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
563 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:30:53
For fuck's sake, Peter, will you please stop trying to re-write the history of Destination Kirkby.

It's pointless arguing what might have been; it serves no purpose presenting your views as 'facts' when most of know full well what went on, no small thanks to the sterling efforts of KEIOC.

Drop it, please.

Patrick Murphy
564 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:30:20
Funnily enough Peter it would have been a damn sight easier for me to get to DK but I'm not a member of KEOIC, but I voted against the idea for a variety of reasons the main one being taking us out of the City was a major mistake and hopefully if we ever have the opportunity to move in the future it will not be outside the City of Liverpool, where the majority of our fans have connections even if they don't all live there.

Kirkby was just a quick fix and exit route for BK and his cohorts with no real thoughts about the long-term effects it would have had on the club or its supporters.

Paul Andrews
565 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:33:56
The natives are getting restless today.
First Dan then Peter have give it the fuck you approach when proven to be posting false statements.
If you don't want the stick don't post factually incorrect posts.
Ray Said
566 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:29:44
As I sit contemplating what I would do with the £150 Mill from the Euro Millions that I am certain to win on Tuesday, I always come back to the fact that I would simply try to buy the debt-mortgages, commercial loans etc- then squeeze until the major shareholders feel like their balls are coming off.

In reality, couldn't a proper ruthless bastard buy the mortgages, call the debt due, then take the shares? Or is the club structured in way that precludes this — anyone have a thought on this?

Peter Jamieson
567 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:36:09
Michael,

Just highlighting, in the context of this subject (how could DK not be mentioned?) that we reap what we sow.

Winds me up that everybody just bangs on about no money, no investment, selling players, selling/ mortgaging assets, blah blah – change the fucking record.

Yet these are same ones that raised a glass when DK failed.

As you wish, that is it from me, on this thread now. I won't post any more on this subject.

Michael Kenrick
568 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:39:18
Ray, that's a fresh idea...

I don't know anything about buying specific mortgages that are held by others... but I think at the last count there were 14 separate ones held by EFC Co Ltd. So, if it were even possible, you'd have to negotiate directly with each specific bank or loan shark, and coming at them out of the Blue, so to speak, they'd be able to charge you a fortune for each one, assuming they would even give you the time of day in the first place.

Nice thought, though...

Paul Andrews
569 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:49:10
Peter,

Very convenient for you to use that as an excuse to not validate your claims.
Stick around,lets discuss the unresearched claims you made.

Jay Harris
570 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:41:36
Ray,
the big problem is most of the debt is leveraged on income and future income which is why it is so expensive.

It is not (to the best of my knowledge) underwritten by the shareholders nor on the shares so unless the terms of repayment are not met and it is rumoured that has been close a couple of times they cannot call the debt in.

The overdraft facility could be withdrawn or reduced but that wouldn't achieve what you want anyway.

Very creative though.

Peter Jamieson
571 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:53:15
Paul.

I'll stick around but just had one on the "editorial team" tell me to " drop it"

As long as I'm not going to be struck off , I' ll happily carry on.

Ray Said
572 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:48:14
Cheers Michael, the post was ' New Stadium-New Approach' so I thought I would throw in an idea from 'left field' as the Yanks say.

Some of the amounts are quite small – in relative terms – but would show massive return to the lenders over the duration of the loan so they may be reluctant to sell the debt on.

My idea would be to focus down on the mortgage with the most leverage – say the one that stopped the building on the Park End – and, if you could acquire that, use the threat of a call back of the amount owed to make the other lenders amenable to selling their debts. It would be significantly cheaper than the £125 mill the owners seem to be asking for.

Michael Kenrick
Editorial Team
574 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:50:07
Peter, you started in on this thread with a heinous lie about KEIOC 'blocking' Destination Kirkby when you know full well it was the government.

Yes, things might have been different.... but that is all make-believe, and you can't build arguments on things that never transpired.

Yes, there is perhaps an irony in that DK was a flawed concept developed to provide a method for the custodians to sell their interest — and make a killing for themselves in the process, although many denied this was 'the plan'. But in any case, it didn't happen — though NOT for the reasons you've stated. Your repeated return to the same bully pulpit is tiresome in the extreme, so perhaps no further posts from you is the ideal solution.

Oh, and "no money, no investment, selling players, selling/mortgaging assets..." — that appears to be the current business model of Everton FC Co Ltd, and fair game for those who care. So please don't attempt to dismiss valid discussion topics. If YOU don't want to discuss them.... then don't.

Paul Andrews
575 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:58:55
Wrong again, Peter.

Michael told you to drop "rewriting the history of Desperation Kirby" nothing else.

Feel free to carry on digging a deeper hole for yourself re the 82 clubs selling their assets.

Tom Hughes
576 Posted 22/06/2013 at 21:33:42
Michael. ..... unfortunately this is what it is all about. There a few individuals who have never gotten over the fact that they were wrong about Kirkby...... and that god forbid KEIOC were proven right on every count. They simply can't accept it..... hence the endless circular and substantiated arguments often ironically to defend the board that lied to them in the first place.How anyone could still support DK in any way is beyond belief. The club dropped it at the first opportunity for good reason.
Paul Andrews
578 Posted 22/06/2013 at 22:08:26
Peter,
We should all give thanks that Keioc were formed to stop Kirby stadium.
And that they were succesful in showing up the ill conceived plans the club set out.Plans that were against basic planning law,and cost the club a lot of wasted money that we could not afford.
Brian Waring
580 Posted 22/06/2013 at 22:12:10
I think the sad thing about all the DK debacle Paul, we were just the puppets for other people to get what they wanted.
Michael Kenrick
582 Posted 22/06/2013 at 22:12:01
Tom, you're right, sadly... the likes of Mr Paul Landon being the prime example.

I think you may have said this already; it comes back to the incredible mileage Bill gets out of simply being a Blue, therefore (supposedly) having the interests of the club (and not his shares or Sir Peter Green's money) at heart???

And anyone daring to take him to task for the failures of the last 13 years being by definition 'against' the interests of the club... even though, as lifelong fans, they have a much longer-term interest and concern in the well-being of the club than do temporary custodians and ex-LFC employees.

Ooops, I'm starting to rant just a little...

Paul Andrews
584 Posted 22/06/2013 at 22:33:14
Brian,
True,very true.
Paul Ferry
586 Posted 22/06/2013 at 22:38:33
My two-penneth, if you want to hear it, is how the fuck can we have the slightest splash of hope that Teary Billy and his cash-cronies will move us along to a stage where we can be perennial contenders when aforementioned Teary is spending most of him time moonlighting as a drummer for Mavis freekin Staples.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/02/16/arts/16MAVIS/16MAVIS-articleLarge.jpg

Peter Foy
588 Posted 22/06/2013 at 22:40:32
Apparently, Bill runs a very successful theatre empire in London and he does not own any theatre venues. He rents them for each show.

Essentially, he's a ticket salesman and football is quite similar in that respect. Why doesn't he sell Goodison to the fans and rent it back off us?

Matt Traynor
589 Posted 22/06/2013 at 22:38:01
Jay #570, you've just highlighted what a number of us have been banging on about for years.

- The club has borrowed money against revenue streams year on year, after disposing of every asset they could
- Therefore the revenue which should be providing our transfer and wages kitty is servicing debt - including the high interest and other financial charges

Therefore we are stuck in a rut. Moyes over-performed with most of his league finishes, and unearthed the occasional transfer gem. However, if we don't maintain this and throw up a few gems from the academy our medium term future is bleak!

Richard Dodd
591 Posted 22/06/2013 at 22:48:09
Matt, as I said elsewhere, we can only hope Roberto can work the same miracles as Moysie did or we are truly fucked!
Stu Smith
594 Posted 22/06/2013 at 23:49:41
Just a thought but... if there was a party interested in buying our club why don't they go public and say why Kenwright has turned them down? At least that way we know of real interest and going public puts pressure on the EFC board.
James McCall
595 Posted 22/06/2013 at 23:10:44
If, going by the last 10 years has shown, under the current owner and shareholders, this club – our club has stagnated, regardless of what position we have achieved or plaudits for efforts made under tight financial budgets set by the board, I still can't see the light at the end of the tunnel. Not wishing death on anyone, as that's going too far and evil for me to think about, I honestly do feel Bill Kenwright will never let this club go. He is the puppet master playing to the thousands, in charge of his boyhood club.

Does he love Everton? –Yes, I feel he does, with all his heart... but you know what they say – love is blind... and Bill can't see the damage he is doing. He thinks it's better in the hands of a fan – someone who loves the club. Yes, as a fan, I would want the head of the club to understand what being an Everton fan is, but that's proven success, trophies and growth doesn't follow. Change is needed and soon or in another 10 years you'll see Martinez sitting next to Bill proclaiming how great their relationship is and how Bill still works day and night to find the right person to take the helm.

I genuinely feel that i'm going to get up one morning, put on Sky Sports News see the death of our Chairman highlighted at the bottom and then for the remainder of the week, hear ex-Reds and Blues players harp on about how everything was for us and nobody loved the club more or could have done a better job.

Mark my words: We will not be sold or build a new stadium anytime soon... and the the only major changes will be made after his death and he is driven outside Goodison in a wooden box. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and we do progress sooner with Kenwright but I'm a realist and the man doesn't inspire me... so, for me, it's a waiting game and a hope of Everton still playing at the top level of English football for a long time.

Dennis Stevens
598 Posted 23/06/2013 at 02:02:20
Re DK, wasn't it the retail element that was blocked rather than the stadium?
Eric Myles
601 Posted 23/06/2013 at 03:17:08
Richard #535 "a confidentiality agreement kicks in but those don`t last for all time... surely?"

Depends on what is written in the CA Richard, I've just signed one for 7 years and another for 20 years.

Not with Everton though!

Jay Harris
604 Posted 23/06/2013 at 05:24:56
Keith Harris's non-disclosure agreement is for five years.

I know at least 2 parties that have made enquiries a couple of years ago and were put off by how complicated the deal was.

Jay Harris
605 Posted 23/06/2013 at 05:24:56
Keith Harris's non-disclosure agreement is for five years.

I know at least 2 parties that have made enquiries a couple of years ago and were put off by how complicated the deal was.

Eric Myles
607 Posted 23/06/2013 at 06:47:43
Patrick #536 "The real question should be how is a club with 35,000 regular visitors and all the income from TV, managing to lose £9 million a year and has been asset-stripped to the bone?"

The Operating Loss was nearer £20 mill excluding the assets that were stripped during the year.

Paul Andrews
632 Posted 23/06/2013 at 09:21:00
The operating loss would have been in the same region this year Eric.
The new tv money will offset some of it.
Eric Myles
639 Posted 23/06/2013 at 09:43:29
True Paul, the windfall has come at a very appropriate time, unless Other Operating Costs somehow double again?

But Patrick's point was 'look how mismanaged we are, we're losing £9 million a year' but we're losing double that so are even more badly managed than he thinks.

Richard Dodd
641 Posted 23/06/2013 at 10:24:59
Just `chasing the dragon`, Eric! Throwing money they haven`t got and have no way of raising — given all those long-term deals — at keeping us in the higher echelons.

The improved TV money has delayed the inevitable but for now it`s down to Robbie to keep us in there. End of Company plan.

Tom Hughes
644 Posted 23/06/2013 at 10:31:58
The point is, Richard, people have been predicting this for years. There must be dozens of articles dating back over a decade even. People have stated clearly and concisely with facts, figures and comparisons galore. Moyes was only delaying the inevitable.

This latest cash injection may lengthen this process further — especially if Bob the Spaniard can do as well or better. Then the usual suspects will bury their heads in the sand once again and encourage us all to do the same. Accusing the moaning masses of high treason against our blue leader, and blaming everyone except those responsible.

Our problems have the potential to be more damaging than those facing almost any of our (supposed) peer group. How many more years of stagnation can this club endure?

Paul Andrews
678 Posted 23/06/2013 at 12:15:12
Good point, Tom.

The debt will keep rising year on year. The only assets we have left to flog off to cover the debt is players. It is inevitable that we will have to sell players to stay afloat under the present regime.

Add Your Comments

In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.

» Log in now

Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.



© ToffeeWeb


Latest News

Subscribe to The Athletic, Get 40% off

Online Football Betting with Betway

Bet on Everton and get a deposit bonus with bet365 at TheFreeBetGuide.com



Recent Articles





Talking Points & General Forum

Pinned Links

OK

We use cookies to enhance your experience on ToffeeWeb and to enable certain features. By using the website you are consenting to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.