Hi Simon,

While I am not savvy enough to answer the above, I think there is much left to be desired at least on the marketing front. Selling T-shirts might sound crass, but that's exactly what is a needful start.

While Beckham can be said to be fairly successful @ Real, what is often glossed over is that Real did sell huge number of Beckham shirts (and associated product sales) that basically paid for his transfer fees.

Many on this website have lamented how the club has tied itself into a poor kitbag deal that prevents our jerseys from being sold in various avenues.
As an overseas fan, I can attest to that. At least in the early 2000s, I could still purchase Everton kits in various shops. Not today.

Again, I always found that there were so many mis-opportunities that we didn't tap into while we had more mileage.
It wasn't too long ago that we had Li Tie, while no world beater, was likened to a Chinese Beckham in terms of his celebrity profile.
What did we do to tap into the Chinese market?
I recalled that one particular game in the early 2000s hit a record high viewership in China involving Everton and Man City. Why was that? Because Li Tie and Sun Jihai were playing.
Even without any efforts, there was already a record high viewership. Can we imagine the potential if there is a concerted attempt to reach into China? Sadly, that came and went.

While we had McBride, John Max Moore, and latterly Tim Howard and Landon Donavan, what did we did we do to tap into the American market?

We had the best of Tim Cahill's career and the profile, but many fans posted on this website about the incredibly amateur-ish efforts when we toured down under. Not to mention that we had Lucas O Neill for a short period of time. The Captain of the Aussie team, and the talisman of their team.

How long have we had Chang Beer sponsoring us? Thailand is not an insignificant footballing nation in Southeast Asia. In fact, they are a powerhouse in this region. Have we tapped into the nation as a potential source of academy talent?

While Thailand is not a developed nation by any means, that does not mean it does not have sufficiently wealthy people.
I know Thaksin (the previous premier and shortlived owner of Thailand is not what we would have wanted), but that's precisely my point.

We are not even looking at developing the leads we have, let along try to explore new avenues. We don't need rocket science, just some strategic efforts.

Simon, both Bill Kenwright and Jon Woods have had successful careers in theatre and IT respectively. I don't think they lack business know-how. They do lack funds. It is believed in an effort to hold on to the club or take it forward (depending on your view) they have taken short-term commercial deals that by their nature favour the other party, and asset-stripped, taken out long-term borrowing, all of which is to the detriment to the club and if it is eventually sold will have a downward pressure on any sale price.

We have no say in who the new owners would be. It's who the majority shareholders collectively decide to sell to. One can only hope they have a plan and the funds to back it up.

As I've said before, the situation at Everton may perversely make them attractive to a buyer, as there's an asset base to be rebuilt, which will ultimately improve the value of the club.

You're right, there is no right solution, but I trust the current board to keep on as they are with finding plenty of the wrong ones...and I do include doing absolutely nothing at all different in the wrong catagory.

Rob Keys #698, I just noticed you described Thaksin as "shortlived owner of Thailand". I think you meant to say Man City, but I also think you were right in your original statement!

The problem is Simon that answering any of these questions is theoretical... And therefore cannot be argued as "right". I will.try to answer as best I can, but people such as Tom Hughes, Christine Foster have already done so and considerably more articulately than I'll undoubtedly manage here. 1. Some people complain that Blue Bill will not sell. Therefore with regards to the Blue Union would their efforts be better served in finding someone who actually wants to buy us? Protesting to get the board to sell is all well and good, but to whom? Surely the Blue Union would get a significant uplift in support if we knew that there was actually a buyer out there. I have a house which if somebody came in and offered absurdly over the odds I'd sell. It's not that I particularly dislike my house, but I could by another. So while my house is not for sale, should someone be driving by and make an impromtu offer (however unlikely and sceptical I may be of said offer), I would consider it. Of course if you, with no affiliation to me other than this digital correspondence decided that you'd act as an agent to sell my house without my authority, where do you think it would get you? Even if you found someone who proclaimed to really like my house they would talk to me, and me only because old crazy Si isn't going to be taken seriously as an unauthorised agent. 2. Who do we want running our club? We are living (albeit just ) within our means (and with the need to sell each year) so what is stopping either a businessman taking over and asset-stripping to a greater extent, or running up significant debt that we become a new Leeds? Why assume that anyone taking over is going to do worse? How possibly with all the billions of people in this world could we agree that said one person is not, in theory, going to revolutionise/destroy the club? Are there better run businesses? Are there better run football clubs? How? Fundamentally because of the asset stripping that Bill et al have already done, there's very little anyone else could do to asset strip us further. 3. Does anyone have the means to take us forward? Forward is defined as a sustainable business model that gets us in the top 4 most years. This will require a significant outlay for players and wages, a new or upgraded stadium and an overhaul of the business strategy. How much will this cost? Then, with this is the actual cost of purchasing the club. The sub question to this is obviously can this be achieved. See your answers to q2. Come on... Are there people who are willing to invest in anything? Are there wealthier people the board? We're not asking for funding to journey to the centre of the Earth, but a demonstrable business which similar have been taken and transformed. 4. Would Everton fans be prepared to pay more for tickets / season tickets? Because the reality is tat need to increase. Of course, if there is an improvement or tangible planned improvement. So here I am speaking as an authority for every match going fan, which is obviously ridiculous... But it stands to reason that improved product means increased price, within reason - prawn sandwiches and million pound tickets personally no thanks, but it's a dilemma that we certainly don't have to consider right at this moment in time. 5. No right or wrong answers (isn't that the problem?) — just interested in opinions. I disagree. There are right and wrong choices in life. Some are insignificant, or may only affect you... But for example, choosing a sedate/unhealthy lifestyle for example may seem it only has an affect on your waistline, but what about the resources you'll use of the health service? What about the reduction of input to the economy if you can't work if you're sick? What about the impact on your loved ones if you die early or are incapacitated indefinitely? Watching Everton die a slow death because of idolness, apathy and fear of trying something different is wrong on so many levels.

Don't know why my phone is line spaces.

Chad I don't think Si is suggesting the BU should find a buyer. He said if it was known there was a buyer out there, they would have more support. My inference is that then the issue would be seen more clearly as the owners not being willing to sell/demanding an unrealistic price.

FYI, there are many appointed agents for the sale. BK has stated as much and named some of them. As non-exclusive agents they will demand a slightly higher commission on the sale of the club. These agents will have an idea of what the requirements of the buyer are, in terms of outline price, and any other conditions.

Using your housing analogy, if you have multiple agents, you will get the following results:-
- A higher commission to be paid on the sale due to non-exclusivity
- A lack of effort on the part of the agent - why put in effort to market the property when someone else could get the deal, and fee? Also, if the price sought / other conditions are onerous, again why bother?
- An agent pushing at a lower price, benefiting from the lack of activity of the others.

Use of multiple agents in sports deals isn't always advisable (I can recount some embarrassing sponsorship efforts), but in the case of a sale of a majority shareholding, it almost certainly is the way to go. It also shouldn't be restrictive - if a buyer wishes to approach BK and the board, and use his own intermediaries, there's no impediment to him doing that.

Rob @698, what you have described is exactly what we do have in our control to achieve at the moment. If the banks decide to ask for all their money and stick to asking, we're screwed. If other clubs know we are broke and will only offer below market value for our players, we can't do a lot about that. If potential investors are put off by the cost, as Simon has explained in the op, then we cannot make them. But what we can do is something as simple as promote ourselves. We have had the players and the sponsorship deals over the years. It's a pity that we are tied to the false economy of using the sale of players to fund the business. It would be so easy to try and do it the other ay around though P.R.

Matt, But Milo's already told us there's buyers in that interview, right. Bill responded “You’re asking why the club hasn’t been sold? I have no idea why Keith Harris, Amanda Staveley, Philip Green, Robert……Elstone, Bill Kenwright…..” Mark, “why haven’t they succeeded?” Bill , “I don’t know….I have no idea why they can’t sell it. Simon, “Is Keith Harris involved Bill? Robert Elstone is on record as saying he isn’t….” Bill , “I don’t know what record that is son but it’s not HMV…Robert said that? When did Robert say that? Simon , “At the public inquiry…….” Bill , “Keith Harris is involved on a daily basis, okay, let’s agree Robert said that; did you read the Keith Harris article in the Echo, The Times, The Guardian…the work he was putting in to sell Everton? Barry , “He was trying to sell Newcastle at the same time, didn’t do…..” Bill , “You’re talking exclusivity? Look, it’s a punt; I’ve been to Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Citi Bank, we don’t think it’s a good idea to give exclusivity, we would cut off too many avenues; no one can sell the club better than me…” Mark asks, “Who have you approached?” Bill , “There’s a guy at the moment in Italy, another in Abu Dhabi…Keith has phoned with another; we’ve put a prospectus together…..look you’ll never get a better salesman than Bill Kenwright for Everton Football Club” Mark, ”The question is Bill why hasn’t it been sold?” Bill , “Why? I wish I knew….I have no idea; look, the thing I’m getting is there’s not enough money in the world; the thing is…..when was the last major sale of a football club?” Barry, “Liverpool”, Simon, “Blackburn”

Milo's my mum.s dog... He might do a better job of selling the club given that the interview was almost a year ago today. It's not so much that he's had another 365 to work 24/7, but he himself talks of THREE potential buyers in that one excerpt - and he's hugely proud of the prospectus, but God only knows,what that's like given the Kirkby images that had lights that wouldn't exist and still managed to look shit, the prospectus cover probably has unicorns shitting gold lead bunting over Goodison, with Messi pelvic thrusting in a goal from 50 yards!

Quite a lot of negative scaremongering in your post there Simon.

Anyone coming in would only have to invest £1 of their own money and that would be £1 more than Bill had invested in the club in 10 years.

The Blue Union "find a buyer" is just ludicrous, they're a protest group ffs.

How on earth is it possible to sell anything like this with the secrecy of EFC 's position, I mean what do you say to prospective buyers:

"I think we owe this much and I think Bill wants this, oh and I think he's got some pals who want this amount of loot so the amount of money you need to stump up is ??????."

Be different if Bill would take their offer to get involved but he won't, absolute disneyworld thinking.

Don't worry about asset stripping and debt - Bellefield and remortgaging every thing we own including future income streams leaves zip.

Top 4 is Sheikh territory or a poorer club with a genuinely inspirational manager. Playing better football and maybe winning a cup would be the next step for us, potentially we already have that it's just being choked.

Matt #705, Thaksin still owns Thailand, it's just that now his sister has pretended to take over running of the country.

Simon, Bill has a dozen enquiries in a year to purchase the Club, so why do BU need to introduce more?

As someone else said, there's no assets left to strip but who we need to run the club is someone with a sound business plan to grow the Club revenues rather than raise short term cash band aids. This can be done over several years and be self financing.

Ticket price increases for ordinary fans could be kept minnimal if there was more money coming in from executive boxes and external revenue streams, but that requires a proper business plan and investment, neither of which the current board are willing to provide.

Chad #716, here's a bit of the prospectus I found in an Independent article

the club's own sale prospectus writes, Goodison has "inadequate capacity, limited and low quality hospitality facilities, poor sightlines and limited accessibility".

and according to Matt who has seen the whole document, the rest of it is just as inspirational and attractive to a prospective buyer.

Simon,
I believe there is always a solution..... and I also believe there have been many mistakes creating or exacerbating the problems you are trying to list.....

" 3. Does anyone have the means to take us forward? Forward is defined as a sustainable business model that gets us in the top 4 most years. This will require a significant outlay for players and wages, a new or upgraded stadium and an overhaul of the business strategy. How much will this cost? Then, with this is the actual cost of purchasing the club. The sub question to this is obviously can this be achieved."

"Significant outlay?"........ I think Moyes has shown that he can almost compete with the top clubs on a minimal budget, so I'm not sure that the club is the "natural" basket case that some would state as an excuse for this board's serial mishaps. What could've been achieved with just a modest injection during this period? There have been quantifiable mistakes.... to read some of these questions you could be mistaken for thinking that this lot have only been in charge for 5 mins, and have only recently choked on some kind of realisation that we are not sustainable, or that they are without the means to even underwrite the building of a tent in their own carpark. The fact is they have been in charge for over a decade (and some involved for significantly longer)....... and in this time there are also numerous examples of the superior efforts/ability/execution of other football clubs to address the issues, delivering the facilties that help their clubs to compete to their full potential. From the absolute minnows to the giants..... we can measure the relative success.......... we have failed.

"4. Would Everton fans be prepared to pay more for tickets / season tickets? Because the reality is tat need to increase.
5. No right or wrong answers (isn't that the problem?) — just interested in opinions."

As in most seemingly complex problem sets, quite often the solution of just one issue can sometimes simultaneously resolve the others. As I said, I think there have been some quite readily defineable mistakes, where right and wrong can be clearly identified...... the Kings Dock debacle and the ilconceived DK farce illustrating this clearly. The KD could've resolved many of the existing defficiencies in one go. The solution need not necessarily require ALL Evertonians to be prepared for increased ticket prices. If a new stadium or stand captures the fans imagination and offers the broad range of facilities, viewing qualities and therefore price range then there can be an increased turnout and income. GP in its current format fails on so many counts.....(just 11 boxes, upto 12k obstructed views and limited concourse areas) this represents failure to realise that full potential. That said, there are so many ways to improve that situation even within the current structures, but again the club has never shown sufficient inclination nor gumption to pursue (or even explore) these, either through severe short-termism, ulterior-motives or plain amateurism........ as I said, there are too many simple comparisons to refute this.

Paul....no negative scaremongering intended - in fact its a reasonable question to ask if / when we bring in a new board what will that actually intail - how much better will we actually be?

Tom,,,,I agree that Moyes has significantly overachieve but to get where everyone wants surely we need that 'class' of player that we have not got. Moreover we have not got a subs bench of any significant threat.

Barry - Perhaps BU role is not to find a buyer - in fact I agree with you but then that leads to another question - what significant threat are they posing to the board and what threat can they in the coming season. Matt points sums up by sentiments by saying if it was known there was a buyer out there, they would have more support. My inference is that then the issue would be seen more clearly as the owners not being willing to sell/demanding an unrealistic price.

Eric - we cannot extend the current provision of Executive boxes.

Simon,
We can readily increase the current provision of executive boxes. Just because we haven't doesn't mean it can't be done...... there are several areas where they could be located, not to mention within any new stand if we redeveloped.

My point about the team was that we have rarely boasted a fully fit or balanced squad for a full season, yet we have been there or thereabouts. Our net spend is almost zero over Moyes tenure...... and there are times when we have been severely short of key players..... therefore, I don't think it's too outrageous to assume that even a moderate investment would've helped fill those obvious gaps and increased quality.

You can count the number of successful takeovers on one hand with three fingers missing, that's not to say it's impossible for us to find a decent buyer, just harder than most of us think imo, having said that, I do believe that this current board {not just Kenwright} want investment rather than a sale, I don't believe they're holding out to make a huge profit on their investment because it's never going to happen, and as time passes and debt increases, it becomes less rather than more likely.
I know a lot of you on here think our current board are stupid, but they are millionaires and we're {well me at least} are not, I think it's fair to assume you don't become a millionaire {business wise} by being a dumb fucker.

Tom, broadly agree with your reasoning on squad strengthening but there is obviously no-one on the current Board who either sees it that way, or has the wherewithal to do anything about it.

Have to conclude that either the club is being run with the absolute minimum of outlay (gambling on a better than average return) or there is simply no money available.

Simon - How much better we'd be is impossible to answer until we have those new owners. I think this and and your reference to Moyes' "significantly overachieve" go together.

What we do know, in any major sport, is that successful clubs wind up with owners who are intelligently ambitious in finance and roster development. Others are ambitious, even brilliant, financially but stupid and meddling in player roster matters (NFL Cowboys and Redskins template examples). And owners who don't particularly care. They just love waking up every morning owning a big league professional team.

Then to the outliers, ManCity and Chelsea; owners for whom financial requirements are meaningless. In club finance terms, their war chests are bottomless and they've warped the wage scale accordingly (Because of them, Arsenal career underachiever Van Persie, already on 90k weekly before last season, has a fair argument he's underpaid).

So to our Club. Our Manager hasn't overachieved at all. I hate the "punches above their weight" analogy. I know what's meant by it, money. All he's done is prove you don't need wealth unrestrained to do well in the wealthiest, by far, soccer league on earth. He's proven the disparity between our "Best of the Rest" status and the clubs routinely finishing above us is our owners refusal to invest any portion of their 100s of millions.

To the best of my knowledge, our major stock-holders made their way in the world. Kenright most of all. Successful in show business? Shooting crap at best. But he did it. Not a dimbulb-rich-kid-son-of-the-guy-who-made-his-way among them (Yes Lerner, I'm talking to you). So, we're not owned by a bunch of dummies.

They bought the Club thinking of the KD development profit possibilities, which was fair but fell through. Then took a run at a straight boondoggle, and failed. So what now? They've sold off everything possible to not have to reach into their own deep pockets to give our Manager the reasonable budget he's proven he knows how to spend well. Not much investment will be needed to strengthen their Club to challenge for top honors, which generates the profit to return their investment and pay off some outstanding debt.

Is it possible the lightbulb's come on over their heads? There's no new stadium initiatives. Our closed season dealings and last's mid-season dealings genuinely improved the Club. Moving EFC up the Table is still the simplest method for guaranteeing increased income. My long way around to answering your basic question on ownership, I know.

What we need is committed ownership. The bunch we got know how to create success. They've done it well in a variety of competitive fields. They had no intention of owning EFC long enough to consider the Club contending for titles. We were just an investment to turn over for quick profit. That's done and gone.

Now they're in a difficult position trying to sell the Club, a position they created through short-sightedness (No Plan B). I wish them gone myself. But perhaps they have come to the conclusion that improving the team is the best thing for them financially and incidentally (only incidentally, true) the best thing for Club supporters too.

Steve, I would suspect that most successful business men have 'blotted their copy book' on more than one occasion, so I am not going to automatically assume they always know what is best. What might really separate them is the fact that some are more tenacious in hanging on to their money, whereas others seem to like seeing what they can 'achieve' if they spend it.

Running a football club may not be quite the same as running the businesses that have made them rich, not least because all your investment boils down to 11 men (with all their individual qualities / faults) against 11 men for 90 minutes once or twice a week for 9 months of the year. It doesn't really equate to simple manufacturing or retail.

I think our best hopes are to be bought out by someone who has made their money through sports clubs and therefore understands how that market actually works, or to be bought by someone who has enough money (and enthusiasm for football) that they are prepared to gamble to achieve success (not necessarily in that order).

Overall, having the right successful business men may mean al ot more than just having successful business men.

Si,
Look at what is about to happen to QPR..... a 35-45k stadium with a closing roof represents a massive transformation for a club that haven't averaged over 20k in decades. All in an era when such things are not supposed to be happening anymore according to BK......How many of those listed issues would've been resolved in one go, by a similar change at EFC?

Tom,
As well as the riches awarded to QPR for getting in to the PL, they also increased their ticket prices by up to 106%, I'm sure even our board could start spending a few quid on the stadium if they doubled the gate income.

Steve

Highest priced ticket for members for opening game at QPR: £45.

Plenty of tickets around £30 - £35 Kids under 8 free of charge.

Steve #998, that may have been the previous Italian owners. I'm pretty sure one of the first things Tony Fernandes did was cut their prices, and give rebates to all season ticket holders.

Points taken Paul and Matt, I think it's still fair to say though that QPRs income now, dwarfs what it was two season ago.

Fernandes is already owed £33M by the club, so he may not be the benefactor that the club thinks he is, in theory, you could say he's about to do what many accused our board of doing with DK, hoping to turn a huge profit once the stadium is built.

Steve,
If their new owners invest in and deliver something of real quality in the right location, and don't have to lie repeatedly to sell it to the fans then they will deserve any sell-on profit if that's what they want to do. Our lot tried to sell us a duffer on the back of multiple lies, that they thought they could get with zero investment from themselves....... a whole different scenario. Yes, it could still go wrong, but IF they deliver it would be the equivalent of EFC moving into something the size and cost of wembley. That is the level of ambition they are showing. Our board have invested nothing additional to their shareholding, they have added no value and have increased debt and diminished built assets.

Regarding our current struggle to find somewhere for a new Goodison Park... what about Stanley Park???

Liverpool were given permission to build a new stadium on the grounds of Stanley Park but have decided to look further into developing Anfield. They are currently extending their corporate seating area therefore giving the impression they are there for the foreseeable future.

If this is the case, then can't we submit plans (if there's money to do so) on taking up Liverpool City Council and building our new ground there? Surely they can't say Yes to Liverpool and No to us, can they!

Groups such as the Blue Union can raise this issue to LCC & anybody else with influence amongst the board!

Anybody else see this as a possibility?

Paul, not sure of how the RS were going to finance their project, but both KD and DK relied heavily on someone else paying the lions-share. It was development grants for KD and in the case of DK Tesco were going to build a superstore as part of the project, so unless the approved plans for Stanley Park involve more than just a football stadium I would say it isn't a possibility at this point in time.

Another concern I would have would be the exact siting of the stadium (I believe the approved area is in the South East part) as it seems to me that Anfield kind looms over parts of the park and I would not want to put us literally into their shadow.

If we had the money, and redeveloping Goodison was a definite non-starter, I wouldn't be too put out by moving to anywhere else in the city boundaries that offered significant advantages over staying in the immediate vicinity of Stanley Park to make the whole project more beneficial to EFC.

Si, Tesco repeatedly stated that they were not going to provide any money to the Club to build a stadium, Kenwright and his friends would have had to find funding themselves.

My bet is that if planning permission had have been given, they would have sold up immediately and the new owners would have funded the stadium. If the current board could raise £76 million themselves then why not put a fraction of that into redeveloping the Park End and add value and revenue to the Club?