Everton's Finch Farm training complex has been sold by previous owners Finch Farm Ltd to Liverpool City Council for £12.925m.
The firm had enlisted property management company DTZ to sell the land and facility in October 2011 with an asking price of £15.3m but Finch Farm remained in their hands until last month whereupon LCC stepped in to insolvency last month.
Formerly New Blue Properties and then ROM Capital [Academy] Ltd and registered in Chigwell, Essex, the company bought the land for £2.1m and paid for the development costs for the facility which was completed in 2007.
Everton signed a 50-year tenancy agreement for Finch Farm then and the club had an option to purchase the site every 5 years, one they declined last year. According to the Land Registry filing, the terms of the club's lease of Finch Farm remain unchanged, although there appears to have been an adjustment in the deal based on comments made by Liverpool Mayor Joe Anderson who said the council had used its “borrowing power” to buy the Halewood facility, in order to rent it back to the club.
The Liverpool Echo report that the terms of the deal "mean the Blues will make 'significant' savings on their regular rent payments," which were around £1.4m a year before the sale.
Mayor Anderson said: “It's a good deal for us and for them.
“We will get revenue from it, and it frees up money for the club.
“When I was approached to see if we could assist, we were happy to, and after a few months of negotiation it was done.
“This nails the lie that the council does nothing for Everton. We will do what we can when we can.”
- Mayor: A good deal for us and for them
- Trust Everton's aims unchanged by sale
- Finch Farm could have been 'sequestered'!
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
865 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:13:39
866 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:17:41
867 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:17:28
Could it have something to do with paying £13 million for something that will earn it 4 times that amount over time?
872 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:34:05
As James (865) says, it makes cash!!
878 Posted 10/06/2013 at 22:49:58
883 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:03:04
884 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:02:49
It is as John says, "Could it have something to do with paying £13 million for something that will earn it 4 times that amount over time?"
LCC will have millions sat in their pension funds earning next to nothing. Makes sound business sense, and to be honest, I would rather the money go to them and the people of LCC than a faceless corporate who salts the proceeds offshore.
885 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:03:35
Maybe they are going to take Halewood from Knowsley into Liverpool and build us a stadium there, as there is plenty of land in the area.
886 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:10:10
889 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:19:08
891 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:36:12
892 Posted 10/06/2013 at 23:42:41
903 Posted 11/06/2013 at 00:30:40
906 Posted 11/06/2013 at 01:01:42
A 50 year lease is just that - 50 years. 44 left and providing the rent is paid etc no one can make Everton move. It works both ways, though, if we wanted to leave we would have to sell the lease or keep paying the rent.
907 Posted 11/06/2013 at 01:14:55
Seems like a good deal for LCC they get £45 - 50 million guaranteed for an outlay of £13 Million. We get a place to train and I assume the upkeep of the property is down to the council as well.
908 Posted 11/06/2013 at 02:08:54
909 Posted 11/06/2013 at 03:32:31
Bearing in mind we got £8M-ish around same time from Bellefield, we could have owned this outright by now, and had an asset worth £13M.
A junior school child would have made a better deal than what BK signed off on, at best it is gross incompetency at worst it smells of misappropriation of funds to me.
912 Posted 11/06/2013 at 06:53:37
913 Posted 11/06/2013 at 06:47:22
I can picture it now: "Welcome to the LCC stadium". You might as well close the shop down, Bill, and we'll all rent our merchandise on match day; "hat cap scarf or a top" to rent.
914 Posted 11/06/2013 at 07:28:51
The man who oversaw the deal is a great Evertonian; he would not do anything to the detriment of the club.
916 Posted 11/06/2013 at 07:29:44
919 Posted 11/06/2013 at 08:06:39
920 Posted 11/06/2013 at 08:07:52
I worked for a company that was involved in the KD fiasco as you put it. LCC's attitude at the time was, and I quote "There are 6 world class bids for this site. Everton's is 7th". The council at the time was dominated by RS season ticket holders.
Everton's bid quickly attained "Preferred Bidder" status after that, not least after the hundreds of grounds for objecting to LFC's then-proposed new stadium on Stanley Park were highlighted.
Then it quickly became apparent that BK couldn't raise the money, and wouldn't do the deal with the one person offering him the money. So the advisers stopped giving a shit (despite many being life-long blues) and just went back to doing the work they were commissioned to do.
LCC didn't cover themselves in glory with their unprofessional approach (in my opinion), but it was nothing to how EFC strung them along.
926 Posted 11/06/2013 at 08:28:18
"Quote from a certain sheikh" he's never dealt with such an amateur. But I take your point on board I'm not that well educated in terms of a business plan/strategy.
There was all sorts of rumours doing the rounds at the time of KD regarding LCC and from someone in the know like yourself seems to be, then I find it even more worrying that LCC now own Finch Farm, and the fact that have proven once before to go with the best bid, what hope do have of ever buying back Finch Farm???
931 Posted 11/06/2013 at 09:34:21
932 Posted 11/06/2013 at 09:40:57
934 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:04:06
935 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:18:36
I've just remembered, the board are worth £2.1 BILLION.... and Kenwright is worth £0. What other club`s fans would take all this shit like we do...???
937 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:14:46
The good news for them,however,is that if it is the Merseyside LAs Pension Fund who own the site,I can claim some part ownership as the holder of a frozen pension with that scheme!
KEIOC`s focus on these silly `false boundaries`are as nonsensical as saying only those born or living in the City LA area should be called Evertonians ,particularly as the Freshy`s in Sefton!
940 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:19:07
I don't claim to be a finance expert but with the figure of around £10M being touted, divide that between just the amount of season ticket holders (around 25k?) gives you £400 each and we the fans of the club if you will own it. Now obviously that's just based on season ticket holders; divide the cost between our actual worldwide supporters figure and the initial outlay we would be asked to fork out would be reduced.
You would like to think that someone somewhere in the Everton family has looked into this and found this to be unrealistic. I can't see it being that unrealistic myself.
Big Nev struck a few cords with me: his winning mentality, secondly 2nd place is nowhere so 6th is worse and the fact Bill could be more of a popular character to us.
I'm with Nev in saying that I am not Kenwright's biggest fan... in fact, I think he's a joke, but he could start helping his and the club's cause by asking us the fans to get involved and in turn help our club out rather than just making money for outsiders, whether that be private companies or in this case LCC.
Once again, it seems the club just lacks vision — imagine you owned a part of Everton, how much more you'd feel part of the club — plus we become more attractive to investment/new owners as we would actually own an asset rather than not owning it.
941 Posted 11/06/2013 at 10:40:15
Whilst some of us are attempting to prove football supporters have a certain level of intellect and should be listened to, others appear content to revel in their neanderthalistic existence. I suppose ignorance is bliss in your case.
943 Posted 11/06/2013 at 11:26:21
Always assuming they have paid cash and not paid it with debt, which would have to be financed, so cutting into however much they would get from Everton.
Considering govt finances right now, my bet is that if they have bought it, it woulda been financed through debt.
944 Posted 11/06/2013 at 11:30:09
Now on the one hand, due to the financial crash, government has artificially lowered debt interest payable by banks to almost zero, allowing people and companies to take on debt for almost no cost, banks willing - good time to go into debt. (Giving the lie that this govt is seeking to tackle debt. It ain't. it's just seeking to tackle govt debt, which is the least serious part of debt in the UK, but I digress). However, banks are still not v willing to lend, so however good a time it is for taking on debt, good luck to you getting it.
946 Posted 11/06/2013 at 11:30:29
As Colin says..... the issue was never about boundaries. (Although there could have been resultant identity and perception damage with the out of town approach). The key issues were that it went against everything in basic stadium planning philosophy, that it was supported by a series of lies and that the whole ballot process was a hard sell sham like all shit deals.I I think KEIOC made it perfectly clear that they would have similar reservations about sites in Speke (within the city boundary) due to the same basic transport and logistical issues........ all this was stated repeatedly at the time.
947 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:06:17
948 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:16:41
949 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:17:53
950 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:26:02
I appreciate that you would also have objections to unworkable sites within the city boundaries but your name does suggest that you would not accept anything outside.
951 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:30:15
952 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:28:04
I assume we still own Goodsion Park? Or do we...???
Well done to all and sundry, especially who "dug out" the vital land registry info. There is no way, Jose, that the club would have volunteered this info!!
953 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:37:14
954 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:45:59
955 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:38:41
Phil, let's not have any victim status here, for years before he crawled under his stone he was pro anything the club put out. Others may be fooled by his more conciliatory reincarnation, I'm not.
956 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:44:01
957 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:48:15
958 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:44:33
961 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:34:10
I fully understand that our income is mi-range for the Premier league, but its in the top 25 in the WORLD! With that in mind, with a turnover of £80m plus, soon to rise to over £100m due to another staggeringly good TV deal, quite why we haven't been able to squirrel away a couple of million a year to pay the costs of a £9.6m training ground is beyond me. Even borrowing the money, it could have been paid for by now already!
The same goes for Goodison. If we need £100m to develop it, borrowing over 20 years, might equate to £10m a season, but that would be offset by increased income anyway so not so impossible.
A Guarantor is needed for debt like that, but we have some very wealthy Board members and if they are not there for things like this, just why are they there?
What pisses me off is that we have just had eleven years of not chucking money around and yet we are no further on. In fact we have gone backwards.
I know the money goes on greedy players and agents, but you can recruit from below and develop players as well. Not every player needs to be on £80k a week. I'd put up with a worse team for the next ten years if we started using our income on infrastructure and not on lining players pockets to such ridiculous levels.
Bottom line for me is that the club had had no one term plan, just a get rich quick scheme for the Board and a couple of Spurs fans which failed, has been appallingly managed as a result and the spike in income due very soon needs to be channelled into infrastructure, primarily Goodison, and not into players pockets.
962 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:06:21
I've just heard that Everton are going to be renamed as Liverpool Rovers. However, Nil Satis Nisi Optimum and the laurel wreaths will be brought back to feature on the new club badge as a result. A spokesperson for the Blue Union said ' as it is only a name, we aren't bothered as it is what the club stands for that matters more to us'
963 Posted 11/06/2013 at 12:56:39
965 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:10:15
966 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:11:11
Six years of attempting to educate people on what's been going on and all some worry about is a name? Clearly we've been wasting our time.
967 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:16:51
Not only a great Evertonian Paul, but "there is no bigger Evertonian", a tireless worker who spends every waking minute searching for new investment (and designing club crests)
968 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:14:57
969 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:17:31
A name like Stop Exploiting Our Club For Personal Gain would actually be more relevant now Kirkby is history.
I'd like to add that I am not a member of any group but, as a frustrated fan, I can see that the Blue Union and KEIOC have made many valid points that every Everton fan should want answers to.
970 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:14:23
I'm also not fully versed in the aims and objectives of KEIOC. The one thing I though I knew was that they wanted to keep Everton in Liverpool. Some of the reasons for which included transport, local business etc but I always felt that it was as much a matter of principle as anything else.
The club is badly run and that should be publicised as much as possible. Isn't that what Blue Union are trying to do? KEIOC seemed to have been set up to combat the specific threat of Kirkby.
If I'm mistaken, what's the difference between the two?
972 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:01:22
Phil, the baldy feller out of The Three Stooges was quite 'jovial'...but he was a fucking idiot.
Personally, I admire Colin's restraint, given he's dealing with an individual who argued long and loud for years in favour of Bill Kenwright and told us we were all fools for not agreeing with him.
(this by the way was BEFORE his complete U-turn).
He also told us what a great idea Kirkby was and how we were holding the club back etc.
Of course now, instead of having the good grace to hang his head in shame and say "I was wrong" he comes on here and STILL, with the same confidence and arrogance, wants to tell all and sundry where they are going wrong.
You say you think his post seemed 'pretty reasonable'?
I don't, I think given the circumstances, it was rude and beyond dumb.
(nb: I consider someone attempting to insult my intelligence FAR ruder than them telling me to go fuck myself)
The fact is, ALL the information is 'out there' for Evertonians interested in knowing what's what.
Those that choose not to, that is their business, but if they then start asking stupid questions, it is entirely legitimate imo for those who HAVE taken the time to find out, to tell them to fuck off.
Seriously if someone asked you 19 times 'what's the capital of France?' and each time you replied 'Paris', would it not fuck you off to have him ask you for a 20th time AND be snotty and smart-arsed about it?
It has all been explained over and over and over, yet some it seems are still looking to pick holes rather than concentrating on the real problem - BK and our useless board.
And let me be honest, whenever I see posts picking holes in Keioc and/or the BU and telling us all how they haven't done everything absolutely perfectly and how they might have made 'mistakes' I get suspicious.
Because I think 'Jesus, our club is being fucked by the clowns that 'run' it, yet all this nob wants to discuss is the fact that a voluntary supporters organization might not have done everything perfectly'.
Yes I might be paranoid, but it doesn't mean someone isn't trying....
973 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:29:48
974 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:36:55
Andrew #973 Classy, save that, as you may have noticed on Saturday, it was Dave Kelly and myself articulating the Blue Union argument.
Think its time to leave ToffeeWeb to those who know nothing, don't want to know nothing but will type their opinions on what they know nothing about at the drop of a hat. On another thread Dan Brierley offers a perfect example; so clueless he's lecturing people on his ignorance.
977 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:51:21
According to Joe Anderson, the club approached the Council for assistance ;
979 Posted 11/06/2013 at 13:42:20
I admitted the other day that I had doubts about BU and KEIOC up until fairly recently. But my eyes have been opened to the club's shortcomings, malicious, incompetent or otherwise and I think it's right that the fans fight back.
I guess the name is just no longer fit for purpose, which is unfortunately quite important if you're trying to market an idea.
Anyway, point taken.
988 Posted 11/06/2013 at 14:29:30
989 Posted 11/06/2013 at 14:33:46
With regard to Finch Farm, Everton have committed to a classic case of get what you want now, pay dear over the length of the lease. Those who have done the deal have left a mess for others to clear up in the future. From what I have read of the lease terms it seems an excellent investment for someone who can raise the purchase price. Everton are committed to the lease, the terms are set, the club is in no better or worse a position than they were 6 months ago, they just have a different Landlord. One thing that puzzles me, given the apparent attractiveness of the investment, is why the moneyed people on or around the Board did not buy it for their own personal pension pot. Are they concerned the tenant may go bust?
991 Posted 11/06/2013 at 14:59:24
I appreciate 'he doesn't suffer fools' but what is he trying to achieve?
I assume Colin wants to gather the support of Evertonians and eventually wrestle the club out of the hands of the clowns at the helm.
He bit Richard's head off, which he has since explained - fair enough, I didn't know the history. But there are still thousands of Evertonians, match-going or otherwise, that he should be trying to engage rather than dismiss.
And I would assume he will be back on TW. It's the most informative, intelligent and humorous Everton website I've come across (there are a few exceptions) and he has plenty of support on here.
992 Posted 11/06/2013 at 15:14:18
I personally agree with the vast majority of what is said on here re the running of the club and the fact that changes need to happen from the top right now.
995 Posted 11/06/2013 at 15:17:56
001 Posted 11/06/2013 at 15:03:03
How silly of me to think`Keep Everton in our City` stood for for `Keep Everton in our City`!
Such is the disdain of these people for anyone amongst the MAJORITY who dared to vote for Kirkby that we get branded as Neanderthals. Colin always had a way with words!
Sorry I rattled your cage,I should have known that any jocular mention of your esteemed organisation was decidedly off limits and well merited a pasting.
Oh,by the way,what does `Keep Everton in our City`stand for? Us palaeolithics would love to know.
003 Posted 11/06/2013 at 15:51:22
006 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:07:40
Richard's post earlier (could have been put better and was probably worded to wind Colin up) suggested that KEIOC would not like the idea of moving to Halewood because it was outside the City. We have since been informed that this not KEIOC's primary aim. So it's a fair suggestion that they should perhaps change their name or it could cause confusion as to what they are moving towards. Why not scrap it all together and just work under the Blue Union banner?
008 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:17:59
012 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:26:53
014 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:29:44
018 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:42:37
021 Posted 11/06/2013 at 16:58:36
Can you share some of the volumes that speak
028 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:08:04
030 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:24:34
What else,in your opinion,did they form for?
031 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:16:11
It would have been great PR for the board to have injected some of their own capital into the club, by purchasing outright this great facility, and saving the club a fortune in rent along the way. At last we would have owned a new asset, and gone a little way in justifying the asking price.
This only confirms their future intentions, don't invest a penny, beg and borrow off anyone who will fund their tenure (at great cost to the club) and get out with a fortune when they depart.
I cannot wait to see what answer they provide concerning long term planning at the forthcoming general meeting.
033 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:28:35
Exactly and when he got the appropriate response to his hilarious shit-stirring 'wind-up', as usual, he whined like a big soft tart.
He's like a thick kid who pulls a dog's tail over and over again and over again, then cries and bitches and moans when it turns around and bites him on the arse.
By the way, re the name keioc, this might be a good time to point out that apple don't grow apples, Nike don't sell Greek Gods and Dick's Sporting Goods don't sell tiny little footy kits to stick on your nob.
Seriously, if you are prepared to spend time analysing and questioning the name 'keioc', rather than the behaviour of those whose have treated YOUR club so disgracefully, you deserve Kenwright and the rest of those bums.
035 Posted 11/06/2013 at 17:31:20
Surely if you are genuinely interested in KEIOC you could find your way to their website - it can't be that hard to find.
You're just so 2007!
042 Posted 11/06/2013 at 18:05:11
045 Posted 11/06/2013 at 18:20:53
Right, I fully understand what you are saying. The name is not indicative of the work they do, that's fine. But it seems to me that their aim as a group is to highlight all the boards past and current failings and expose them to a wider audience. You have to assume that any person not already supporting their cause has either made up their mind that they love BK or, much more likely, is not fully up to speed with events behind the scenes. That second point is particularly prevalent in the media where we are portrayed as a well run club. Consequently whenever KEIOC do make the news any person who isn't fully informed will jump to conclusions about the groups' objective.
Having an irrelevant name is fine, but you cant call yourself Eugene's Plumbers Merchants if you once sold a tap 5 years ago but now breed Koi Carp in bathtubs. Its misleading.
If BU and KEIOC are the same people then why don't they operate under the one relevant banner and gather support from Blues around the world?
I don't know why any of this is my business by the way so forgive me for sticking my oar in.
048 Posted 11/06/2013 at 18:21:10
As far back as Johnson wanting to build on Kirkby golf course, our Chairmen have been attempting half-baked schemes for our Club.
The plans where there many many years ago to re generate Goodison realistically and affordably. I believe it was KEIOC who brought this to our attention when The Club said it couldn't be done. Without these groups god knows what hair-brained schemes we'd be involved in.
050 Posted 11/06/2013 at 18:59:36
"Apologies if I am oversimplifying things here, but I just don't get how EFC find themselves in this sort of situation."
Let me oversimplify things: we are run by fucking amateurs from top to bottom.
The Chairman is a notoriously tight-fisted twat; the CEO is an identikit cost-control bean-counter; and the directors are invisible. It's frightening.
Kenwright ACTUALLY BELIEVES he is the right man to lead the Club.
And that is the most frightening thing of all.
051 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:03:22
052 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:13:51
054 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:16:59
067 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:02:41
Well I might be able to help with the time, but before I do, I'll refer you to what I said earlier.
"The fact is, ALL the information is 'out there' for Evertonians interested in knowing what's what. Those that choose not to, that is their business, but if they then start asking stupid questions, it is entirely legitimate imo for those who HAVE taken the time to find out, to tell them to fuck off".
So, to be clear, nobody is saying 'READ THIS!' - what they are saying is 'if you don't want to read this, fine, but then don't ask me about it, THEN tell me I'm full of shite when I give you my answer' - BIG difference.
One thing I might suggest though.
Instead of posting to give us your "Waaall, ahm jest a simple man and aaah don't hold wi' no fancy book laarnin' schtick (incredibly interesting though that is) why not use THAT time to visit keioc and learn something.
See now you DO have time.
(don't mention it, as the old song says - 'if I can help somebody as I pass on my way, then my living has not been in vain')
071 Posted 11/06/2013 at 19:29:54
I am inclined to agree with you regarding the inappropriately named KEIOC. It may come as a surprise to you given that I was a founder member of the said group and Chair for more years than I care to remember.
Therein lays the problem of trying to manage by consensus or committee: doesn't work, as you can see from the abomination that is currently portrayed as a new badge.
The initial "name" for the fledgling group was, believe it or not KEITH!!! Yes KEITH, Keep Everton in Their Home, as a play on the now long departed CEO. This was supported by many in attendance at the first Steering Committee meeting. Many of whom had played an active part in the GFE (Goodison For-Ever)
Thankfully this was rejected in favour of KEIOC (Keep Everton In Our CIity). Once again, in my opinion, not the greatest choice of name, but what the hell – we needed to hit the ground running.
We needed to respond and react to the Club's propaganda right away, they had already started their charm offensive. The plans we had to set up a membership system, adopt a constitution etc had to be abandoned. The war of attrition had already begun
The rest, as they say, is history. With regards to who or what are KEIOC and or The Blue Union, once again, I agree with you. The waters may well be muddied. After KEIOCs actions had been fully indicated at the Public Inquiry, the group met up with intentions of dissolving the group.
After much deliberation we decided to continue as a group, relaunched and rebranded. We would no longer campaign under the banner of Keep Everton in our City but under Keeping Everton In Our City. We switched focus to reflect who and what we had become, to use the wealth of experience and expertise that we now had.
Initially, when The Blue Union came together, KEIOC continued to campaign on issues outside of what the other constituent parts the Blue Union had committed to; the Football Quarter was at a crucial stage.
Personally, I am of the opinion that at some stage Evertonians 4 Change, KEIOC and The Peoples Group will effectively become one.
Richard, I think I have mellowed after years of campaigning. "Why do I waste so much time explaining to people like you?" I ask myself. I think I may have found the answer. It's because you are either a highly intelligent individual, a wind-up merchant or just plain stupid. I assume its the latter, you have had so much practice over the years you have perfected it. STUPIDITY IS YOUR FORTE ;-)
While you sit their pontificating, "our" club will be sitting back idling away the weeks, months and years waiting for a free stadium on a retailed enabling park; it ain't gonna happen.
We do and always will end up with the Club we deserve. I know the Colin Fitzpatricks and Tom Hugheses of the world deserve better... DO YOU?
073 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:10:54
080 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:15:46
1. As a "neutral" attendee at The Casa, it appeared to me that decent camera equipment was being used, George McKane had all his people in place. The technology failed; we all know it can... that is a genuine shame for all those who could not view proceedings. But scorn was poured out on all involved which was quite unnecessary.
2. This discussion has turned into another slanging match. Colin and Dave, I was very impressed by the way you spoke on Saturday, but Colin in particular, your tone on this thread is harsh. I know this is a hard city, we are all supposed to be tough guys, but it can be intimidating coming onto a site like this. My opinions on many matters Blue have been influenced by all kind of posts on here, it would be a great shame if people were intimidated from saying what they want to.
For what it's worth, my mindset has changed. What I once perceived as "anti Everton" behaviour I now view as a force for much-needed change. It's taken a while for that energy-saving lightbulb in my head to come on. For others out there, the switch may not yet have flicked. Be patient, don't risk alienating people. COYB.
084 Posted 11/06/2013 at 20:55:40
That post, although directed at Richard, was the very reason why you and any other (Colin), should continue to post on this site. It was well constructed and concise, giving the reader an informed idea of the history of the group (Keioc). It was a shame that you had to add the last 3 paragraphs, which just brought you down to the very level you seem to hate from others. It is that very trait that is common place on this site and detracts from the excellent work you have all achieved.
We are not all in the position to do what you do, but that does not mean that we don't appreciate what you have done. Why ruin it by being rude and mocking those less fortunate than yourselves. I think that Richard often comes across as being the devils advocate, stimulating the debate. Throwing insults just does no good, in my opinion. Anyway, keep up the good positive work.
092 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:28:41
097 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:47:06
100 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:54:28
101 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:51:29
Basically LCC are hoping that Everton continue to stay in the Prem for at least 20 years in order to get a decent return on their investment.
102 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:56:48
103 Posted 11/06/2013 at 21:46:16
It was never my intention to undermine the work if any person or group but I genuinely believe movimg away from the KEIOC name will help to gain credibility and recognition outside of the Everton family which will surely be a huge part of winning the fight
107 Posted 11/06/2013 at 22:13:51
Keioc wiped the floor with the legal team of Everton Football Club. I think they realised how significant the victory gained by a small group of fans against the representatives of a Premier League club was.
At that point they realised the ongoing influence they could have in any moves the club made to the detriment of the fans. They have proved very successful in doing that. Long may they continue.
111 Posted 11/06/2013 at 22:17:14
Is it not possible that LCC bought Finch Farm in order to retain it as an asset for the city of Liverpool and one of that city's icons, Everton Football Club? If the complex was for sale, a random property developer somewhere might otherwise have purchased it and put its use as a training ground for EFC at risk. Perhaps LCC stepped in to avert this?
To that end, is it not also possible that LCC might be amenable to negotiations with EFC somehow to reduce / defer the amount we pay in rent under the 50 year lease? Could that not be what Joe Anderson is referring to when he talks about this saving the club money?
Just putting it out there, would be interested to know if you all think I'm going barmy...
114 Posted 11/06/2013 at 22:41:58
134 Posted 12/06/2013 at 01:28:48
It's a good investment as the council will reap more than the cost of the investment over the long-run. That will generate revenue for the residents of the area.
This is a shrewd tactic of asset-liability matching and I admire the council's foresight to lock in such a deal at such a favourable price.
This is a win-win, i.e., both for the residents of the area and the fans of Everton. When it comes to financing, it's softer for Everton FC to deal with a City Council than private investors.
Once again, thank you Liverpool City Council.
144 Posted 12/06/2013 at 06:01:33
145 Posted 12/06/2013 at 06:34:10
And there you have the reason why one of our directors did not buy Finch Farm.
He has already got his cake,and is very much eating it.
148 Posted 12/06/2013 at 06:23:47
It's been spun as positively as 6th place in the league. End of the day, the council own it and in 45 years time, what is the land worth?
151 Posted 12/06/2013 at 07:13:57
In housing terms, we aren't even buying it on a mortgage, we are just renting. That is always referred to a dead money if you are an individual, but you gain flexibility to move home easily. That's not something a football club needs so in this case it really is dead money.
£75m over 50 years for something that cost £9. 5m new and after 50 years they still don't own it! Shocking when you think of it like that.
I wonder how many other EPL teams lease their training ground? As such a key facility, you would think it would be a priority to own it.
155 Posted 12/06/2013 at 07:57:01
157 Posted 12/06/2013 at 08:18:27
171 Posted 12/06/2013 at 09:24:03
For fuck's sake why do we take this shit from these `owners`???
We need to demonstrate, march, actively remove them asap. Because, if Martinez fails...There`ll be no more `history` to sing about.
186 Posted 12/06/2013 at 12:28:30
As for our Council to spend near £13 million of taxpayers' money that will not produce a profit for the City for many decades is indefensible. This investment will not produce one job for the people of Liverpool, so I hope Joe Anderson can give us a detailed breakdown of how this is good for the City. I can well understand a council helping local businesses with financial help if it secures local people's jobs or the promise that it will create jobs for the local workforce, this as I see it does neither.
So the council are lending a business that has a turnover in excess of £80 million a year and is struggling to buy its own training ground for £12 million despite getting £10 million for their old training ground. I would suggest that Councillor Anderson looks after the people he is there to represent than bolstering a badly run business.
188 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:09:00
195 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:17:16
I imagine though, the Board thought 'Fuck it, we'll out of here soon enough, let the next owners worry about shit like this. As long as we can operate with the income streams we have, let's keep our exposure to an absolute minimum.'
Abstract from EFC business plan, first 8 months of 2013. Apologies, that's as far as the cashflow forecast goes!
198 Posted 12/06/2013 at 13:18:33
209 Posted 12/06/2013 at 14:03:08
230 Posted 12/06/2013 at 15:28:47
238 Posted 12/06/2013 at 17:00:35
241 Posted 12/06/2013 at 17:34:32
One that will never be repeated.
Difficult to understand how this failure of a board could not get £30 million together for that stadium.
I believe we sold Rooney the year after the deal fell through for £27 million.
That puts it into perspective.
245 Posted 12/06/2013 at 17:55:11
As for favouritism with regards to LFC from LCC, surely you must realise the LFC are the biggest employer in this city. Every time Liverpool play at home in the PL, every hotel room in the city is booked up, pubs, bars, restaurants full. Taxis chocablock, fans shopping in town, flights into JLA etc.
Such is the effect LFC has on the local economy that the Council are trying to create 3,000 extra beds in the town centre to accommodate the masses who flood in. Isn't it then understandable that the Council would want to protect its Golden Goose? Without the LFC connection, Liverpool as a city would suffer in all aspects of its growth... It's not about favouritism — its about good business sense. Something that is severely lacking at our club.
256 Posted 12/06/2013 at 18:42:32
One arm behind the back stuff. BK has to let the truth out and suffer the consequences because it will out one day, and the longer it goes the worse he will look in the pages of history.
301 Posted 12/06/2013 at 21:41:40
But the LCC will not lease the training ground to a higher offer, believe it or not LCC prides on its heritage, and Everton is a huge part of the citys heritage.
The rent payments will save the club £1.5 million a year, and that is great news, I see only the positives here.
308 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:01:39
How much would the mortgage repayments have been? At least we would've then owned it eventually. I agree LCC is probably a better option than a company. .... but the issue is why can't we afford our own training facilities in the first place?
313 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:16:10
You're way off beam with your assumptions, LCC gave EFC a ridiculous amount of leeway and numerous extensions to try and get Kings Dock off the ground, it failed because arsehole Kenwright couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery, he was more interested in kicking the Greggs into the long grass than securing the long term future of EFC, and for that I'll always consider him a gobshite of a Chairman!!
315 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:20:39
And how can the club be saving £1.5m a year when the rent with previous owners were up to £1.4m?
323 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:09:02
326 Posted 12/06/2013 at 22:56:54
The problem we have is that the Board have systematically mortgaged or loaned against every asset the club has, so when trying to raise more funds through borrowing there is no longer anything to secure it against.
Now ordinarily, you would look to the owners to stand as guarantors for a new loan but this has not been an option since the Kirkby project fell through and Earl et al took their toys home!!
So essentially we are Fucked, and yes that is with a capital F !!!
356 Posted 13/06/2013 at 07:50:15
432 Posted 13/06/2013 at 16:35:05
Why Did Liverpool Council Reject Everton's Request For Stanley ...
www.toffeetalk.com › Everton › General Everton Discussion
434 Posted 13/06/2013 at 16:33:35
what's the latest on the Trust ? Anything more you can let us know about ?
I seem to remember at the start of the process you asked what if anything supporters would be prepared to invest. Anything significant on that ?
436 Posted 13/06/2013 at 17:01:13
Rather than a £1m rent saving off the Council as suggested, the amount is most likely to cover one month's wages of our highest paid player, which is even more worrying from an "easing of the financial pressure" point of view. I just hope the reduced rent kicks in before Fellaini's July wages are due, or he might be joining Arteta after all.
The question is, at what point does the saving become a "win-win" rather than a "mis-use of public funds" to bailout a private business by reducing the rent? And that's from the point of view of a lifelong Evertonian and UK tax payer.
450 Posted 13/06/2013 at 17:41:17
The deal will cost Everton double the £13 million the City Council paid for Finch Farm.
Robert Elstone goes on to say "The club is especially pleased to have delivered an innovative scheme that works for both parties".
Can someone please advise me how intelligent people are taken in by the spin from Elstone & this board.
451 Posted 13/06/2013 at 17:48:34
459 Posted 13/06/2013 at 17:50:43
As has already been said above, BK's performance over the Kings Dock and the way he treated LCC should go down as one of the most shameful and destructive to the future of the club of any chairman in its history. For all of Peter Johnson's RS credentials and wrongs, he didn't make half as much a mess as tag of convenience BK has.
461 Posted 13/06/2013 at 18:31:57
I periodically check the website for any updates.
Just interested if anything was almost at fruition and supporters' donations/money any closer to being accepted, if you thought we could manage an acceptable bid?
467 Posted 13/06/2013 at 18:12:59
A big 0 out of 10 in bright red ink
468 Posted 13/06/2013 at 19:20:11
The Council never had to reject Evertons application because they have never applied for it, simple really. See the comment from Tom Hughes at 238.
People keep going on about how the Council wouldn't help EFC with KD, sadly it is an oft repeated but factually inaccurate belief, it was very much down to the Board of EFC that KD failed to materialise.
511 Posted 13/06/2013 at 22:12:28
Because when Peter Johnson was chairman of Everton he did not get the support of LCC when he was serious about a new stadium. He being a businessman knew the importance of having arena that could bring in extra revenue to finance any future spending on more expensive transfers so Everton could compete with the big boys. That is probably one of the reasons he sold out.
BK the present chairman is not a businessman, so cannot really appreciate the need for a new stadium. But he does believe in things remaining as they are until someone gives a big fat cheque for his shares in £EFC.
546 Posted 14/06/2013 at 07:39:51
568 Posted 14/06/2013 at 10:21:16
In the Kirkby ballot, I believe it was made clear from the outset that the Board`s decision would be based on a simple majority of those voting. I recall that the whole process was conducted under the supervision of the relevant authority and resulted in a majority of those voting in favour of the move. You may well argue that the list of those eligible to vote was drawn up too narrowly and that anybody who ever professed to be an Evertonian should have been granted a vote (just think what a birthday the RS fans would have made of that!) but I do not believe there was any gerrymandering of the process whatsoever.
Although I voted in favour of the move, I, like a lot of Evertonians, later came to believe it would have been the wrong decision except to say the Club did go out of their way to stress they had no Plan B.
So it has proved!
570 Posted 14/06/2013 at 10:53:57
When is it going to start?
Time and compound interest wait for no man...
572 Posted 14/06/2013 at 11:04:02
The concerns of those that didn't vote Yes were proven beyond a shadow of a doubt after millions of pounds was wasted. I voted No and none of the propaganda arguments ever swayed me. I had very good knowledge of the proposed location as relatives still live there... A fallacy and fools errand are mild terms I could use for such a hare-brained scheme doomed to failure.
581 Posted 14/06/2013 at 11:43:30
"Good thing" — some might say!
600 Posted 14/06/2013 at 13:21:24
618 Posted 14/06/2013 at 14:28:12
I don't know how you can say it was based on lies. The club clearly pointed out the following:
• A world class stadium
• The best travel links in the North West
• Guaranteed extra spending for the manager
It is beyond me how anyone can doubt the truth of what they told the fans. It is obvious why they won the ballot.
620 Posted 14/06/2013 at 14:51:56
626 Posted 14/06/2013 at 14:53:58
Precisely and what was even more annoying/depressing, people were being conned by someone who had conned them before.
Like sticking your head into a beehive, being stung to fuck, then sticking your head back in thinking 'this time it'll be different'.
What was it George W Bush said - "Fool me twice...erm no...fool you once..no fool me twice, shame on you once..no me....erm I mean once..shame me once...or twice shame you...once..."
Never a truer (and more garbled) word.
628 Posted 14/06/2013 at 15:05:50
You are probably right. But people could only vote on what they believed to be the situation at the time and the majority of those who did so voted to move. I don`t think that they deserve to be denigrated for trusting the Board`s recommendation.
In the event, it was said even BK breathed a sigh of relief when the scheme was knocked back but he certainly told the truth when he said the Board had no back-up plan whatsoever. Sadly, I think the only plan that`s ongoing is to stay in the Prem as cheaply as possible.
636 Posted 14/06/2013 at 15:42:08
Why would they doubt them and believe the alternative scenario that was presented to them by KEIOC?
And which party has been shown to speak with forked tongue? Again.
643 Posted 14/06/2013 at 15:29:54
646 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:02:18
Also, here is a genuine question to all. How much would Trust Everton have had in the bank at 31 May 2013 since 9th Jan 2012, the date the website went live?
1) No costs incurred at all by Trust Everton.
2) Actual compound interest rates during period.
3) 1,000 new fans signed up per month as members at £10 per month. (total 17 months). And work it out if there had been 2,000 fans per month.
649 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:11:13
The Hitler analogy is a bit over the top,don`t you think? It seems to me that some people are determined to maintain/foster division in our (Evertonian) ranks for all time.I suspect that were they to be successful in unseating Kenwright that would be seen only as the first step in establishing an owners`co-operative as per Ebbsfleet FC.
That was an amazing success,wasn`t it?
651 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:14:40
659 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:31:26
M1 = 1000 fans
M2 = 2000 fans
M3 = 3000 fans and so on?
660 Posted 14/06/2013 at 16:55:41
665 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:18:03
Only if you keep popping up and saying it was the right thing to do Richard.
671 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:32:09
673 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:34:35
Have a look and let me know. happy to help in anyway.
676 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:42:30
677 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:51:01
678 Posted 14/06/2013 at 17:40:21
680 Posted 14/06/2013 at 18:03:55
685 Posted 14/06/2013 at 18:44:38
Let`s hope Roberto can cheer us up with some decent signings!
112 Posted 16/06/2013 at 15:42:13
London-based lawyer Alex Haffner, a senior associate at Dentons.......added: "The key issue will be the application of the 'market investor test', which looks at whether a private investor would have acted in the same way. In view of these developments, it is no exaggeration to say that all football clubs that have previously entered into commercial property transactions (with public bodies) are now under the regulatory microscope."
WOULD A PRIVATE INVESTOR HAVE REDUCED THE RENT FOR A SITTING TENANT WITH OVER 40 YEARS LEFT ON THEIR LEASE?
That's what people should be asking themselves surely.
Fans just want to know all these factors have been considered by the club and LCC, but given how the re-branding was handled, there will be concern that all is not right with this deal.
Fans want clarity and detailed answers. "Win - Win" is not good enough.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
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.