Everton Status: It's Complicated

Philip Green can we have our Club back please? You are not getting your retail enabled development because we're onto you and the game is over for this little scam you had going.

Kenwright the 'True Blue' ? ... Give me Richard Nixon, Venkey or De Lorean.

I've said on ToffeeWeb so many times, the Reds would never've taken 1 year of this villain without SCREAMIN at the club's front gates, Granada reports et al. We have to do the same now, guys.

"it wou'ld be easier his record score sixty goals in a season!"

The feeling I get from most Everton fans is that a change of management was needed and our captain was past his sell-by date as a player – and could anybody inform who the several players are?

If you want to own a football club, you take on a duty to have an honest relationship with it's support - whether you like it or not. Closing your door because you don't like to answer valid questions from shareholders should not have been a consideration.

Another poor decision.

You bought the club for £22mil over 15 years ago, at which time the balance sheet read £20mil+. Today you want £120mil for the same stake with a balance sheet nearly £50mil in the red. Where is the possible justification in that?

I understand the point that it will discourage time wasters. What I do not understand is how the board can justify pocketing that amount of money. That money won't go into the club!

For me, the £120mil quoted would be a fair price if the settlement of club debt were included in that amount. Then any potential buyer would get a PL club with zero debt. Surely that must be an attractive proposition!

What is everyone's thoughts. Do you agree with me or am I talking from my derrière.....COYB

I think TW has homed in on the real problem that's been highlighted – blacklists, people posing as photographers, good god, what's going on at our club? What are the board so worried about that they do this and stop people from attending the EGM?

The Board can't come back from telling everyone that we were getting £50m from Tesco when the government said we weren't, can they? Or are we just interested in arguing between ourselves whilst these con-artists continue?

I was at the Blue Union meeting the other week when they put something up that was the actual method used to calculate the amount paid by Kenwright and his consortium in 1999. Colin explained it and it was clear all debt was included.

I used the figures from today's accounts and, before you get to the Goodwill section, the amount is so negative that the club needs to be given away! No sensible person would pay anything like what they're asking and nobody has.

There's an old saying about following the money...

Why is there a belief by the board that there's value in this business? Is it because of the media money? That's another question worth asking, imo.

Despite the ground, the debt etc "IF" the price is right and it isn't just greed there is a deal to be had.

The Prem is the greatest advertising billboard on the globe (I had no clue who ETIHAD were till Man City) so why not appoint a fans rep when evaluating suitable buyers. No details have to be broadcast just a trusted fan group saying "yep, Bill is telling the truth, can't do anymore it's a fair price they're all just shifty so and so's messing us about"......

.....or otherwise.

Oh I forgot we're a well run club and every other club should be run the Everton way.

Good piece though and well thought out.

Fingers crossed for an answer.

Now if the question was: Who valued the club? (Was it internal or an external independent?), and using what mechanism? — then it would become less emotive, and gain a lot more insight.

£40 million debt in the Premier League is nothing. Sunderland have double ours. If we are going to ask questions, it's imperative that they are the right questions and are not just questions that are easily rebuked.

Newcastle changed hands for £130 million six years ago, so £125 million given the earnings potential of an EPL club in the Champions League doesn't sound a million miles away. But of course, I would prefer if we were sold for £1 and the the other £124,999,999 was put into the club coffers. But of course, this is never going to happen.

Good and valid points raised. But would you pay market value for a house if you had to take on an extra debt worth 40%. I know I certainly wouldn't. I think it is fair to expect the price of the club to include the payment of debt. If you are comparing it to a house purchase then you maybe should review your comment. If you buy a house you buy it at market value. That then pays off either the previous mortgage or if there is no debt to any mortgage then the previous owner pockets the value the full value.

Selling it at market value makes sence yes, but that should include any debt oweing, as does the purchase of a house

You cannot compare the sale of a multi national business and the sale of a house. 2 Completely different worlds. As I say, maybe you should review your previous comment.

£20 million of assets in 1999 and now its £44 million of liabilities. They have destroyed value by pursuing an asset utilisation and disposal policy and invested nothing and they still want to make a profit!

Any wonder that the only man that claims he can sell the club can't! Let's stop making excuses for these parasites and fantasists. Tonight should be a dose of reality for them and I look forward to it.

I and others have identified for years that Everton are far too dependent on TV revenue in terms of overall income (the one revenue stream they can do little about, and the only one to show growth under the tenure of this board).

The double whammy effect is much of the debt is borrowed against season ticket income, TV income etc. so the club has no chance to trade profitably when other costs (wages, and the mysterious OOC) are increasing. A triple whammy is the piss poor commercial deals that were entered into due to the guaranteed income component (which could then be borrowed against) despite the fact they are so poor as to put us way down the income league in this area. Evertonians don't buy merchandise? Whatever you choose to believe, but it's hard to buy something you can't find.

I didn't get involved in the other thread from Richard Tolman about these potential buyers, as if they're willing to pay the asking price then I'm worried about their motives and plans.

But you believe that our debt position is the oft-quoted £45m. I would venture that there's substantial off-balance sheet debt - the club is paying out at least £10m / year in debt servicing (for £45m?) - and frankly we are, for the third time under this board, creeping towards administration.

Wishful thinking of course and I'll be following developments on this site and several other feeds throughout the evening yet I have a rather nagging feeling, that nothing new will be learned tonight... I hope I'm wrong.

We should really stand up; Green is the puppetmaster.

We can not use the 'house for sale' analogy for obvious reasons, as so eloquently pointed out in several of the above posts.

Bottom line in my opinion: The asking price is stopping the sale. And this from a chairman and board who have not contributed 1p over and above the price they paid for their shares.

Apparently we're going to have the pleasure of one of Elstone's presentations tonight, let's hope they have more substance than the last two, the one about Kirkby showing us how wonderful Tesco were providing £50m and the one about the Park End development — nobody in their right mind believes a word he says.

Let's be honest, we're no better off than the last time people's concerns forced the last EGM five years ago: no stadium, no new owners and still no trophies. We'll be saved by the £20 or £25m from the new TV deal; problem is, everyone else gets it... so expect this existence to continue.

The disappointing thing is that we still have fans who will believe the lies that will be spewed out by Mr Chairman and his cronies, despite the valid points you make above. How people are so gullible is beyond belief.

The other facts speak volumes, and if you're publishing something as important as this then at least have it proof-read - it just makes it easy to discredit the whole thing.

One detached property.

* Currently has 14 mortgages on it.
* Dilapidated condition (owner informs us it may not pass a Health and Safety Certificate)
* No intention to upgrade property in the near future.
* Bought in 2002.
* Owner seeks a modest profit on his initial out lay due to lack of investment in keeping property up to scratch.

OIRO £125 million.
Please form an orderly queue to express an interest in the bargain price.

The remainder of the article however is spot on for me and well done BU for getting this out. Each and every word and statement is up for scrutiny and critique and therefore padding with subjectivities, as in the opening is unneccessary and potentially damning to the article.

Best of luck to all in attendance tonight. As Dave Kelly has highlighted, dignity and respect should be the order of the evening but answers must be forthcoming and of substance. If not, the board and CEO have to be pressed and the media encouraged (for the umpteenth time) to pick up this story exposing our so called club custodians for their deconstruction of our once great institution.

Unfortunately, they will wheel out the stock answers they have been using for years - 'They are in discussions' or 'We are actively seeking' or 'Looking to improve this side of the business' or 'I am speaking to people weekly'

They will be hoping someone calls them bullshitters or liars so they can publish a reason not to have any more meetings.

I doubt they will commit to anything deliverable, or put any timescales on any promises.

The best outcome for supporters is that they are exposed as a group who couldn't deliver a Sunday newspaper, never mind an innovative financial strategy, or a new stadium.

Would you still expect someone to pay over the odds to buy it when they can get a better deal elsewhere?

And would you wonder why, despite searching 24/7 for a buyer, you couldn't sell it but still consider yourself the best person to sell the property?

Or would you call in a professional to value it and market it for the recommended valuation?

Is 125 million even real? The irony is that people treat it as gospel, but it came from Stan fucking Collymore who was apparently told it by Paul Tyrrell! I don't expect there will ever be public domain figures on the club valuation. Is this because the club is wrong and trying to hide things? Or is it standard practise for every Ltd operating in the world? As always, I prefer to have some facts before passing judgement.

(That last bit is meant for you really, Paul Andrews. Try to focus on meaningful discussion and ditch your attempts at point-scoring, please.)

Every time I point one of Dan's incorrect posts out,do you consider that as point scoring?
Just so I know.And so I can post accordingly if Dan is offended by my posts.
Tbh he comes across a bit more ebullient than that, "shithouse...show some balls etc"
If it affects his delicate nature of course I will not reply to his posts.

He is totally right no proxies should be allowed full stop, unfortunately a lot of shareholders are at an age that creates an apathy and no replacement is going to add any real value, save for the fact that they should not be there at all.

The cynical side of me would suggest Mr Kelly does not want proxies there as it will in my opinion create a situation at the meeting where there is more support for the board than the anti brigade albeit I am sure who will shout the loudest.

The document produced today by the union is to a degree conjecture and will achieve nothing at the meeting tomorrow as its old news and known by all, to keep regurgitating it is without question just a frustration for both sides, as I have ssid before on this site if they put together with the same effort and passion something that was unique and helpful to the club they would receive considerably more support and respect from a wider audience and tomorrow would be that opportunity, but we all know that wont happen.

It will be the same old same as one party is expecting the worst and the other party wants to deliver it, not a recipe for any future cooperation, I would ask the union to give a little and try to engage rather than attack if they are not receiving answers to the same old questions.

Time will tell but the opportunity is there if they take the blinkers off, same for the board, for the good of our club lets hope.

Generally, if you feel the urge to say something, but it doesn't actually have any bearing on the main topic, then maybe you could just let it pass?

Jus sayin...

Joking aside, I am no different to you Paul. I am more than happy to debate my views, although to be fair you have only been popping up lately to criticise, rather than offer your own view as an alternative so that we can at least discuss. Admittedly, this has resulting in me deliberately baiting some posts to see which usual suspect will bite. But for the sake of the other people using the website, this needs to be knocked on the head as I am even getting bored of my own point view so god knows what others think!

Really Dan, so where did the top players get the Rolex watches, the flash Ferraris and the ridiculous designer clothes from? Maybe they've been begging...

Of course, that kind of business model would offer nothing in terms of footballing achievement, but the books would be bloody good.

Of course guys, there is a middle ground. I am giving the opposite extreme example to try and stimulate debate that ends up with at least some level of balance. I don't recall Kenwright saying he was going to spend his own money when he took over, but nobody seemed to protest then? It was also not that long ago this board were 'odds on' to make a cheap internal appointment for a new manager, and would never listen to their fans. How many people admitted to being wrong on that one?

Priceless that lad, even for your highly deluded standards.

A football stadium is unused for the majority of the year yet offers so much non-matchday potential as a venue for meetings and conferences for non-footballing events such as concerts and televising concerts elsewhere in the city. Why not tie in with other venues and events and broadcast on screens in the stadium itself (obviously aware of the nearby residents for evening events), with the additional standard fare revenue streams, sales, marketing, merchandising, advertising, new media, catering.

Every single penny available should be in the cross hairs of the incumbents as targets to seek out, win and earn; adding these to the football and broadcast coffers make a more suitable pot to draw growing salaries.

They have no coherent, step-by-step, year-by-year projection of where we will be. They have identified a site – wow!

They are out of ideas and cash. I have a horrible feeling we will be stuck in the same Goodison in 20 years time – but with new CCTV & a refurbished bog.

Last night confirmed one thing to me – this Board have no intention of selling the club; they would have to go bust before we see the back of them.

A perfectly acceptable exit strategy for any of them would be a loan to the club on a particular burden, eg, stadium development or purchase of Finch Farm, making the balance sheet and company at the point of Due Diligence far more attractive to a buyer, and then give them the subsequent exit, claiming the monies for this on their way out of the door, solely for their loan and not to be split with the other shareholders.

It's as if they don't trust each other at times, as if anyone spending money is just lining the pockets of the other malingerers.