Abu Dhabi Dooooo!

I agree with everything you have said, I said on another thread that for me this could be a pivotal moment for us as a club. The gate receipts are up, the fans are upbeat about the future as shown by how many season tickets have already been sold for next season. We have a gifted young manager and a team full of youngsters who could be the backbone of the club for many years to come. We have had the best league position for a number of years, so if we are not a sale-able asset now then we never will be.

Failure to attract a new owner could set us back years, will Barkley, Coleman, Stones or McCarthy stay if they think there is little chance of competing for a Champions League position? I am sure that there will be plenty of clubs who could offer them Champions League will be knocking on the door in the not-too-distant future.

So, for me, failure to attract a new owner with money to spend could easily see us lose the promising youngsters and the brilliant young manager. I think it is worth remembering that fans have ambitions as well as players and a failure to try to satisfy those ambitions may result in the club going into decline for many years.

Commercially speaking, Aston Villa are about the same level of attractiveness as us... the last season's improvement, for us, won't change things on its own. We'll need to sustain at least 5th and put the frighteners up Wenger for a couple more seasons yet before we get any sniffs from the big commercial interests. We have a better pedigree... they are the bigger side in their city. We have lots of new talent to talk about...they don't need a new/rebuild stadium. Mostly it'll balance out.

Unless Lerner's getting one of his 'mates' lined up like Al-Fayed did with that Khan bloke at Fulham, and that doesn't sound like the case if Harris is involved, we'll see how long it takes to sell an 'unfashionable' regional Premier League club.
Be interesting to watch.

I want a good businessman who's going to demand that Everton are run like a good business; so that we become self-sustainingly profitable on the Arsenal model, not the "rich owner model".

BK is outright wrong when he keeps saying "we need a billionaire". No, we don't. We only need a billionaire when we're so badly run as a business that our only ability to spend can come from cash injections.

Fulham sold to Khan for a reported £200m 2013

Malaysian consortium led by Vincent Tan bought 30% of Cardiff in 2010

Assem Allam Bought Hull for a nominal fee of £1m in 2010

Venkys bought 99.99% share of Blackburn in 2010, spending £23m and taking on £20m

Of these the most comparable is Fulham... They sold for £200m and where just relegated for gods sake. We have a bigger stadium, we're a more successful club with a more illustrious history. We have much better on field form than them for many years. Arguably a better brand. So if they were sold and we weren't then what does that tell us? Surely that all the things i've mentioned aren't useful factors in selling a club. Or at least if they are, there are bigger issues which i'm not aware of which make Fulham saleable and Everton not.

I do not have the answer and I am torn between, something that involves investments into the club, but a club run as a club versus outright sale of soul and identity to some foreign investor. I think Kenwright et al. want the former which is why no progress is made.

PS - do Leicester have a new stadium already?

If Everton FC don't get the necessary investment in the near future, we will continue to struggle to be regular challengers for the top four places - Bill Kenwright and some of the supporters are living in the 1950s - the modern game requires mega amounts of cash to just stand still and every year that passes sees our current model struggling to keep up

If we are happy to see our best players move on to more ambitious clubs then all well and good but don't expect a top four finish for Everton FC in its current state.

The manager and the players do perform to a higher level than should be expected and they have done for the past five years, that I'm afraid is the best we can realistically hope for in the present circumstances. It is the reason that we are considered to be in the same group of clubs such as Southampton, Stoke and Newcastle good clubs and mostly good players but not enough money to compete with the richer clubs.

If by the time Roberto's contract has expired and we are still owned by Bill Kenwright and friends I would expect that our dreams of top four will have to replaced by settling for mid-table mediocrity. We need investment and we need it now and a new stadium if it ever materialises will not be enough on its own.

I would love to be proved wrong by Roberto taking us to the title or top four next season under the current regime, but my head says it is now or never for Everton to find real investment and it's about time Bill Kenwright and Company realised it.

Oh well... don't forget at least Calamity Kenwright is a blue looking 24/7, isn't "some foreign mercenary" and "no-one buys football clubs these days," erm... running low on hollow soundbites; anyone help?

The advent of the Premier League and football selling its soul to Sky has killed the once romantic equality in the game. Remember Forest coming up from the then Div 2 to win the Div 1 Championship the following year.

Wouldn't I be great to get back to that model when 20 teams kicking off in august have a chance of winning the title.

The current model is not scalable and can't last. For every Boom in history there follows a Bust and its only a matter of time.

We are now bringing through our own generation of youngsters and we desperately need investment to ensure we continue to progress and can compete against the oil money clubs as well as hold onto our bright young team. However, I wouldn't like us to just become the play thing of some Sheik or Oligarch or even worse end up with the likes of Venkeys or Vincent Tan. It's going to be extremely difficult to find the right kind of investment. I agree with the posts saying that now is the right moment to find that investment as the club on the brink of going places. We just need a little push to help us on our way.

We don’t seem to know any other way than the hard way, as the last 25 years have proved, but when you look at the likes of Nottm Forest, who had good history... then look at us and ask whose shoes would you rather be in when looking at how a club is run, we have had to swallow mediocrity football for long enough.

Like I said to my lad yesterday, I have a good feeling that good times are going to come our way very soon.

Guys you say that you don't want Everton some Oligarch or Sheik to take over, why not. I think what Sheik Mansoor is doing at City is fantastic, and although they have invested heavilly the long term plan is based on the Barcelona model.

I well remember when Sir John owned our club and we could outbid any club for any player and I loved it. Would I like that period to come round again you bet I do. Football has always been the richest clubs win things on a regular basis, the others just exist on scraps. Because of the money in the game you will not be allowed to build a team to challenge the top boys because they will buy your best players off you and their is nothing you can do to stop it.

If we had a billionaire owner with money to burn what obscene amount should we spend on players for our squad of mollycoddled superstars? 100 million? Half a billion? A billion? How much should we pay/bribe them to play for us? 100 grand PW? 200 grand PW? 500 grand PW?

Then we have to decide how much we are prepared to pay to actually see our team of millionaires play. The most expensive matchday ticket at Arsenal is £126, Chelsea £87, Newcastle Utd £70, Man City £58, Man Utd £53, Liverpool £52, Everton £43. So it would appear that rich owners and big grounds actually significantly raise admission prices. Watching PL football is the most expensive in Europe.

Finally let's discuss the morality of such obscene spending. There are people in this city who can barely afford to keep a roof over their heads. Using food banks. Going without heat because the bills are too expensive. It simply amazes me that so many potless people spend their time griping about how much we should be blowing on grounds, players, and salaries without making any effort to think through the implications both financially and morally of what they are advocating.

Football used to be a working class game. it would appear that those days have gone. Now it's just about instant success, instant gratification. All without any thought about the cost to our club or ourselves.

Problem is, we can't pick and choose. Assuming a new owner has the billions, there's no way to know how he's going to turn out. I don't remember the Arses turning handsprings over their new Yank ownership when Kroenke bought the club, and I'm not sure even today that they'd agree with Drew's contention that the Arsenal model is preferable to the Man City model, especially since City has won two titles.

One thing for sure, Drew... when I saw all those cheering City faces on Sunday, I didn't see a single one for whom the title seemed to be "hollow"... all I saw was joy and delirium, and I envied it. And I want it for us.

They can invest as much as they wish on new infrastructure though, which is precisely what is required at present. Then they can sponsor their own stadium for £500m to spend on players!

In the past, and especially pre-Sky, the rich clubs had an advantage, but not an insurmountable one. That's not the case now; City, and also PSG, being bought not just by individuals but tapping into entire countries' oil funds as part of a national rebranding, are exponentially richer than anyone else.

I think there is a middle way, and Arsenal are the model of that. They are self sustaining, they extricated themselves from a small, locked-in stadium with limited capacity (like us), remained competitive during the tighter financial years that the Emirates' move required, and are now in a highly profitable position while a) remaining true to their history and b) not being reliant on some individual and their vanity project.

Manchester City are like Football Manager with an infinite money hack. They're not going down the Barcelona route at all, other than "big club".

I almost leaned towards wanting the RS to win the league, because while hardly "poor", they're not in the same league as City; and the only way I can see to stop an infinitely monied club just dominating for the forseeable future is to keep the instability that might be caused by them failing from time to time (and thus rotating managers).

I absolutely don't want that for Everton. If we were to get bought up by some sheikh then, frankly, we're not Everton any more. No more than City are City any more. They're a different entity, a vanity project. I never want my club to be that. Sure, no doubt there's a certain pleasure in being super rich and buying a bunch of world stars, but it's a passing pleasure without the emotional investment.

Ultimately I'm just completely disillusioned with football in general. The only little pieces of hope are that we can punch above our financial weight, start running like a business, and build slowly towards financial security and success in the way Atletico Madrid have in Spain (as a great direct example).

The man is a fraud and until he packs up with the other clowns, we will never be the force we should. All we have in are favour is what's on the pitch and a very, very good manager..

I stand by the fact that its the rich clubs that win leagues, you and I may disagree about how you become one of the rich clubs but the fact that money buys success has always been the case. Even Blackburn needed Jack Walkers wealth to buy them the league, they threw huge amounts of money at players and without the money most of their top players wouldn't have given Blackburn a second look. This isn't just a British thing about rich clubs being the most successful, this is the same in Spain and Germany.

I also well remember City playing in the third tier of English football yet they still got very good attendances, and I can only imagine the stick they got from their neighbors, so good luck to them. Also when I said that they want to develop the club the same as Barcelona, they plan to have the biggest training ground for their academy and plan to develop their own younger players overtime, but first they had to make City the club the kids wanted to play for.

I accept with the new FFP rules then it makes it impossible to do what City have done in such a short timescale. But maybe I am shallow but I would like some of our young fans to experience the joy of winning a league or dream of winning the European Cup. Rather than facing decades of finishing 5th or worse and being told what a magnificent over achieving side to support.

The recently adopted Fair Play rules specifically prevent new money being drip fed to a club from a benefactor unless it can be proved to be part of a genuine business sponsorship. Thus the Russian money that established Chelsea in the Rich League is OK, whilst City are in all kinds of shit because their funding came after the rules were applied.

It seems that the Sheikabrovich lifeboat no longer has any room for Toffs !

Had a mate of Bill's on the train a couple of years ago coming up for the Chelsea game. He was an American movie producer/ actor, who told me the best role he ever had was playing the Mayor of New York in Godzilla!

He was a Yankie Kenwright, reminisscing about his early days and when I suggested that it was about time Bill sold up, he looked at me like I was a Texan. No Bill doesn't want to sell, he loves it was his reply. Between me and you he just wants investment.

So who do you believe our wonderful Chairman or The Mayor of New York?

Think about it: he is the "biggest blue" on the planet and to be chairman if Roberto takes us to Wembley and win!!

Remember 2009 when he was crying pitch side saying how much he wanted Everton to win. Well as long as we are so close to achieving something he will never give it up.

He can't bring himself to do it, imagine if he sold and within 2 years we won a cup.

He would never forgive himself for selling up just as he was about to become immortal to himself.

He and the media believe that Everton are run the right way and no way is that going to end.

and to think, he hasn't put a penny into the club... pure showmanship and bollocks has gotten himself part of the way. The other part is a good manager and Moyes/Martinez have served him very well.

As long as media pricks occasionally bring up "Overseas investment" as imminent every year or so he will look like a genuine guy waiting for the right buyer.

We would need to plummet for Bill and Co to even think about selling.... and know one wants that.

The very, very best players will go to richer clubs, but we need to grow our own squad slower, with stability and team spirit to bridge the (small) gap between the quality of one group of players and another, we can challenge anyone. Hell, we've done a good fist of it this season, and there's plenty more improvement to come from us.

Bot that I'm saying we couldn't do better than BK but at least he had us holding our own....and more.

Manchester City are a team owned by the deputy prime minister of the United Arab Emirates, who is happy to distract any attention from a country with no free speech, jailing without trial, torture by throwing a fraction of his family's $500billion at a club in the Premier League; safe in the knowledge that England is about the easiest possible place to do so with zero scrutiny.

The only reason they're throwing the money at the training ground isn't because of a desire to bring through young players or "be like Barcelona"; but to offset capital expenditure against transfer fees in order to get closer to adhering to FFP.

I understand the desire to have that kind of money, but frankly it's success to the detriment of the game as a whole and, for me at least, without any great satisfaction. None of the satisfaction of having succeeded against the odds, or through long term hard work, none of the satisfaction of seeing someone like Seamus Coleman blossom into the best right back in the country.

I want to see Everton successful, but frankly I'll take those decades of "5th or worse" than being some toy for a rich dictator playing fantasy football.

I agree and I believe that's exactly what Roberto is aiming for. With an emphasis in the medium / long term on youth development. Well, a good manager is what we already have. And a modest transfer budget is our fate.

Problem with that is you develop a breed of 'new fan' who believes they are entitled to shiny bits of tin pot and care little else for little else.

The bright(er) Gallagher brother sees it. He made a comment about 'City fans of a certain generation not being used to all this...the kids are used to it but we're not'. He made a very clear us and them distinction between the true fans and the kids who've known nothing but the glory.

Look at Utd now...winning everything for years...one bad season and they've lost 10% straight off the top of their revenue. Lets say van Gaal's as big a flop as Moyes...how long til the gaps start showing in the stands at OT?

I've got no problem, massively, with the idea of some Russian robber baron, oil sheikh with a dodgy human rights record or Yank who wants to seek out his roots in the old country and buy into this quaint little club in Lie-verpool taking over the place. For a murderous bastard I think Abrahamovitch is actually a football man so I'll take one like him please...see whether John bloody Whittaker at Peel still fancies saying no to a stadium on the waterfront then!.

It wont be the club I recognise now and I'll be disappointed after a fashion, not because of any hopes for this board, but because I take pride from the fact we are doing what we do on a wage bill thats a half that of the tossers over the park, half of Arsenals and about a third of what Chelsea and City pay out. I loved the fact Wengers arse was going and the team driving up it was full of lads that were either local, ignored or forgotten by the 'big clubs' and sent off to disappear into the unfashionable provinces somewhere.

Thinking about us with sacks of cash... buying trophy after title I can see where Gallagher's coming from. Dont know whether I could get used to it. Not that I'd be adverse to trying like!

Bill Kenwright, CBE

The two issues impacting investment into EFC are a ridiculous shirt and merchandising deal capping all income (at a ridiculously low amount) for a decade...and a willing seller!

The local area is also being regenerated all on the sheiks dollar. What's not to like?

Football has changed whether we like it or not. Meanwhile we are living in bullshit Billy's bubble where he feeds us all the crap and we take it year on year. The clown will never sell, get used to it as this is as good as it gets for us!!

I don't care for whether we sell or not but whoever buys, if they buy, should have a stable long term vision for the team however much they invest in the short term. Would our star manager stay or be allowed to stay in that situation? Or would the new owner want to run the club more hands on like Roman did when he first took over? But then again, until we get sold, we never know whether we get lucky or not.

But that would mean releasing shares that he and his cronies will never part with.

The American joined the club in 2006, taking over from Doug Ellis. He has spent around £200million on players during his eight years at Villa. Villa have been stuck in four straight Premier League relegation battles

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2626078/Randy-Lerner-announces-putting-Aston-Villa-sale-eight-years-helm.html#ixzz31dwysUff
--------
So, their investor is walking away and leaving them in the shit. They are effectively a club in crisis now. 6,000 season tickets sold for next year (we are 22,000 at last count), no transfers in/out and they are in a waiting pattern until someone decides to buy (the buyer would have a fair amount of leverage you would think in this case as it is almost a fire sale).

Compare that with Everton – consistent performance, European qualification, great crowds, attractive football, fantastic manager, good youth set up, much improved finances, etc

Yep, BK & the Board are doing a terrible job.

Lerner actually was a pretty good owner. Put in as much money as he could – largely wasted by O'Neill. After Lerner ran out of new money he hung on for a while but realised the club was going nowhere without massive new cash injections (which he could not provide) so sensibly decided to step aside. Fair dinkum to him I say.

There are other good owners: Ellis Short at Sunderland, Joe Lewis at Spurs – rich men who have shown some stamina. But you do not need to look forward to owners who manage their clubs insanely badly to the point of destruction – Coventry City, Cardiff, Fulham, Portsmouth, Leeds, Notts County, Rangers, Blackburn, Liverpool (previous owners) etc etc

Blue Bill has picked two excellent managers in his time and given them the time and the space to do well (unlike Levy – who does not own Spurs but who runs it – and many other owners). But for all that the problem with Kenwright is that he has not stepped aside although he must know that for Everton to progress greater investment is needed and he is an obstacle to it being provided. Lerner knew that and did step aside. Kenwright... please note.

But isn't any investment in infrastructure excluded from the FFP income vs expenditure assessment?

However, here's my wish list:
Improve/increase Goodison Park BUT retain the look & feel.
Increase our "warchest" to say £40m per season (I'd lose very little sleep if we did occasionally exceed that).
Buy Finch Farm and continually improve it.
Bring a trophy of ANY flavour home to GP maybe even 2-3 times a decade.
Play with style & dignity.

Frankly that would bloody well delight me !

IF BK as Chairman could deliver that then fine, if it was someone else then fine.

To me Chairmen, managers & players arrive and leave, I don't. Born I was and die I will, Evertonian throughout.

It's very easy for us to say that we do not want to "Buy Success", well give me a taste of "Purchased Glory" for the next decade and then I'll decide.

Let us not be guilty of re-writing our own history either.

"The Millionaires Club", aka Everton Football Club Company Limited. Sir John Moores money never held us back, did it? During that era, we were the bigger of the two local clubs.

Subsequently, the "Moores Money" shifted across the park, and so did the success.

I don't love Bill Kenwright, but I don't hate him either. I do deeply despise cretins like Vincent Tan. Sheikh Mansour? I'd accept that level of success.

Finding an ideal buyer/chairman is a tightrope walk and painful though it may be, falling with a leg either side of the rope is still INFINITELY preferable to falling to either side.

Firstly is (club) management. IMHO, given our finances, Everton has in recent times, generally been very well managed from a football, community and financial point of view. Just look at the article in the Echo on Points per $ spent to see how well we have been run:-

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/how-everton-fc-compare-comes-7113568

The second point is investment. I would say that the majority of investment in football clubs has been a failure. From the dodgy fly by nights (Portsmouth etc) to the well meaning failures (eg Lerner) it generally has not worked. RS were within a whisker of going bankrupt (those prayers were nearly answered!). Only the few mega rich (Man City and Chelsea) have worked out. BTW, Lerner is not graciously stepping aside, he is just bailing out and in a way that will not help the club. So, my point here is that maybe BK is being rightly picky over any investment. Given the experience at other clubs then that seems sensible.

Let's not forget, £30M of Randy Lerner's £200M would have got us a brand new stadium in the King's Dock. Let's not just brush that aside.

Everton are where we are not because of Kenwright but despite him.

He was a businessman, and everything had to have a business case. In the event, I don't think he ended up sinking much of his own fortune into the operation of the club at all. Far from it.

Many people proclaim that there should be change for the better simply because that is what they believe they deserve. "Better" to them means winning things by and large. Somebody somewhere out there has a responsibility to give them what they crave.

This is often wrapped up in talk of investment. Now whilst I accept that we can get a return on our investment in many non-financial ways, in our personal relationships, investing time and care, etc. to business people investment means getting some sort of tangible return.

IF that is the main driver, can anyone tell me why anyone would invest in any Premier League club?

"TV mega millions stupid!" is the response. "Big sponsorship deals", "Big commercial deals", "Executive boxes", etc., etc.

Yes, I know that the fans of various stripes will continue to pay obscene amounts of money to Sky and BT (ultimately) so that they can give it to the clubs, who can then make millionaires at an increasing rate of players whose agents ensure that more money to the club goes into players’ pockets. That’s where all the rest of the money goes ultimately too. If Snakebite doesn’t move after the World Cup, does anyone seriously think that he won’t be looking for even more money?

So no money to be made by and large. What other benefit do owners get that is worth, say, £200m, in Villa’s case?

What would they get from the "investment" of same in Everton that would be better than taking some minimal risks in other investments and getting a return of £15m a year? Although football finances are murky at best nobody manages anything like that year on year.

Nailing 2 other oft-made asides:

The Moores family never have put large sums into Everton or any other sports team, other than purchasing shares (EFC, LFC, Saints). What John Moores did do was guarantee bank loans, which the club paid off.

Keith Harris gave a short and very interesting interview this morning on Radio 4. Listen if you can. He was introduced as the man who has played a part in the sale of 25 football clubs and who brokered the sale of Chelsea from Ken Bates to Abramovich. Clearly we don’t want this "know-nothing" involved do we?

So when Aston Villa get sold next week, why don't you make two phone calls. Firstly phone the new owner and ask him why he bought a Premier League club, and secondly phone Keith Harris and ask him why he has managed to sell 26 clubs but not Everton.

A decent stadium is what it is and you can then concentrate on the team.

Teams are continually evolving and need updating constantly via the transfer market; couple this with a stadium build and...

You want another example, then take Newcastle. Single-city team, great stadium (52,000) which they fill even when they are playing crap and (Wiki) "...the twentieth richest club in the world in terms of annual revenue, generating £115.3m in 2012" . Yet, they still cannot get their act together. We have consistently out-performed them for the last decade (and the rest).

Owned 100% by Mike Ashley who apparently tried to sell them twice (in 2008 and again in 2009) for asking price of £100 million (sounds reasonable to me) but he failed both times to find a buyer.

I know we all want easy solutions and it is very comforting to have a scapegoat to blame but the reality of life is seldom that simple.

For comparison, any other team, let's pick Aston Villa, would need something like £250M spent on them to be genuine challengers. Their wage bill would triple or quadruple. Ours wouldn't need to do that, so long term it seems a stadium and slight improvements to a team is cheaper than the massive overhaul that other sides need.

Again, it doesn't seem like anyone else in the real world thinks that way though. But what I don't understand is that American sports 'franchises' build new stadiums all the time, even when they don't really need them. That often involves public money though, I think.

I'm a child of the eighties and don't get too exercised over BK issues – although KD and DK both upset me when they occurred. The next generation following me seem either totally unaware of what happened or don't give a stuff.

Seeing the debacle of so many takeovers, I've come to believe que sera, sera!

The fact that Villa, a club very similar in size, fanbase, history etc. has been openly put up for sale has many of us wondering how long it will take before they can find a willing buyer.

Contrary to some of the posts above, this won't be a 'fire sale' as Randy Lerner is certainly not desperate for the cash. We also now know that TV money should cover the running costs, so he won't be losing money the longer he holds on to the club.

If Aston Villa are sold within a few weeks, doesn't that indicate we are not actually up for sale, or there are too many conditions attached to our sale including a prohibitive asking price?

The sale issue is not all about Bill and his partners, or how they have performed. It's whether or not you can sell a Premier League club if you have the will to do so – a question we have been asking for many years now.

Bill Kenwright, who lives in his own little fantasy world and deludes himself he's the best man for the job, arrogantly doesn't.

I can't disagree with what your saying mate but what I find hard to swallow is this.

Big investors appear to be looking at the infastructure first, number of corporate boxes, stadium location etc. I may be wrong in this but I honestly think they are of the opinion that they can buy the title by throwing money at it.

You, me and anyone with a football brain will know, this to a degree is not necessarily so but they see the Chesea and City model and try to copy it.

Wasn't it part of BK's spin on DK that to attract investors we needed a new ground?

Well firstly you need to be specific about 'money'

Not enough and yes, you will fail, but if you throw ENOUGH money, you certainly CAN buy the title.

It is beyond dispute that City and Chelsea were in (relatively) recent years, teams with no more money than anyone else and that neither side had won a title in generations.

It is also a fact that billionaires bought them, spent hundreds of millions on players and titles/trophies/CL arrived soon after.

That is simply what happened and anyone thinking of investing enough to be successful would understandably look at City and Chelsea and think 'that's how to do it'.

Sure there's no 100% guarantee of the title and occasionally there'll be a (Utd-style) blip, but the percentage of money-lashed-to-trophies-won is hard to ignore.

In the seasons to come, the PL will undoubtedly (continue to) be won by a team (or teams) who have invested 'enough' and even those that don't get their hands on the actual trophy, know that second/third/fourth provides the consolation of entry to the (real prize?) cash-cow that is the CL.

Depressing and (in the spirit of competition) completely unfair but there it is.

Bill owns 25.84%, Robert Earl 23.27% and Jon Woods 18.92%. There may have been offers, but how do we know how much each individual is willing to sell their shares for?...

is easy to answer...the majority wins and everyone has a price.

I do also believe that a huge stumbling block in the selling of the club, had you done the research, is that small fact that any appointment to the board, sale of shares or directorship changes has to be approved by Prudential as they have a charge on the business and its tangible assets. Therefore, it will be very difficult to sell to a foriegn investor as the confidence between the investor and prudential may not exist. It is therefore fair to assume that a foreign investor would have to pay off the prudential charge in its entirety (it cannot be paid early on the cheap and prudential don't want it back early as they are a pension company and exist on interest payments!!).

A new investor/owner would therefore have to release the club of its debentures, crown debt, charges and borrowings as well as build a stadium and fund a team...thats probably more the reason we don't look attractive from the outside.

Debt is ~£95m (inlcuding liabilities/interest/penalties)

Stadium would be ~150m

Purchase price ??? ~120m

Team investment ???

the club would cost too much...and thats that I suppose.

The Sky money would come to the club whether the board room was awash with chimpanzees in bowler hats so don't try that one, the outsourced deals including sponsorships are not even on a par with our peer groups so pop goes that one. The team has done well, again I yet to see the blue rinse or his hangers on anywhere near the touchline during a game and if you peer over to the freeloader seats at halftime they can't even be arsed to watch any good PR stuff we might bring onto the pitch.

We don't necessarily need a billionaire, we just need and more importantly deserve someone who is far more capable of running the business than some old luvvy who pops up for the occasional 15 minutes of me me me time when its going well and there's a camera about.

Apparently the Runners-up in the League received more money than the Champions from the Premier League due to the vast amount of games they were shown live on TV. Everton's TV payments were matched by Aston Villa so as I was arguing last week there is a huge disparity between Everton and the others when it comes to live coverage. I am reliably informed that our neighbours featured live for all but one of their away games that's 18 out of 19 away matches seems fair to me.

1 Liverpool £97,544,336
2 Man City £96,578,329
3 Chelsea £94,106,163
4 Arsenal £92,870,080
5 Tottenham £89,663,884
6 Manchester United £89,161,831
7 Everton £85,027,727
8 Newcastle £77,379,252
9 Southampton £76,915,298
10 Stoke £75,679,215

Phil Walling should go back to his bookie and claim he meant a seventh place finish in the money league!

Yeah. That's what I was trying to say.

City could spend a couple of hundred million on a "youth training facility" and never use it, and still use it to offset other expenditure to comply with FFP.

On the other hand, Villa is the only Prem club in our country's second city and has a stadium to be proud of.

Rumoured price of Villa £200M. Everton £125M.As a business person, which would have the most appeal?

Probably neither. !

The current board are clearly lacking in expertise and ambition and are incapable of that first stage of transition. We should not expect a massive change overnight, but a business-savvy management who is able to get the club back on a secure footing without Vibrac loans, cheques in the post or inflated TV money, and who was able to resolve the stadium issue satisfactorily, would be a good start. We can then dream about mega bucks (FFP permitting.)

But let's just get a decent Chairman, CEO and Board in first; ones whose ambition for the club extends beyond them being Chairman, CEO and Board of Everton.

Can I try again, with a supplementary?

Can anyone tell me why anyone would buy a Premier League club? The supplementary? Substitute Everton for ’a Premier League club’.

The rest of my post poured a lot of cold water on "making money" as an answer.

Well firstly nobody can tell you for DEFINITE why, so all you can do is take what you know about the PL, the teams, the current owners and ask a few questions (that have fairly obvious answers) connect those answers, then come to a conclusion based on that.

A 'for instance'.

Sheik En V'ackk buys Manchester City.

Question – is it a business thing, is he looking to get rich?

Not really, he already IS rich (as fuck).

So what other reasons then?

Does he love football?

Yes!...Or possibly no – if Yes though, he can have the best seat in any ground in the world at any game, so that doesn't tell us why he wants to buy a whole club.

So... what's left?

Oh that's right – ego.

The PL is a worldwide 'brand', it's glamour, stars, glitter, press, news and if you buy a club, you're RIGHT in the middle of it all.

In fact with all of them, it basically boils down to ego and/or business (business = making money).

That big fat twat at Newcastle is a great example of both, he obviously has an ego to match his cocky's hut and he's turned their ground into a big ad for his shitty company.

You can go through them all and ego and/or business will cover most of them (add fantasist show-pony and you've covered them all).

To find out why anyone would buy a club, look no further than those who already have.

My point being if we're all on the same level playing field then it makes it a bit more interesting especially from an Everton point of view who can't afford to keep up with the likes of citeh on a pound to pound basis but with a club built on a youth system then for me we wouldn't need Aggadoo money because our system is in place an we can get rich of sky.

Thanks for your answer, it goes in the direction I was leading but you allow the possibility of a business case. There isn’t one, as I alluded to briefly and as has been confirmed to me by people involved in football finances from Deloitte and at clubs.

What is left is the obvious. We are not looking for investors, so posters need to get real and stop using the term, we must be looking for egomaniacs with money to burn.

When its put that way it comes down to judgements about what different egomaniacs are telling us and those are pure speculation when it comes to what we-think-that-they-might-think on any given day.

The other suggestion (from me) is that the more money we suggest needs to be lavished on our club the greater is likely to be the ego of the maniac involved. The phrase "careful what you wish for" springs to mind.

People surely don't want to watch Spurs more on the TV – they are a two bob club that consistently finishes below us, have won less than us, and not been in the top flight as much.

This proves history counts for nothing.

Tottenham are from London and have a seemingly endless pot of cash each season (even with the Bale cash removed) to increase their squad. It's horsehit but guaranteed they will be be stronger in the betting than Everton for the title next season.

Eric #86

Credit where it's due. Who appointed the managers?

What about our very own Robert Earl? How much did he pay for his shares? £8m wasn't it? Probably worth around £30m now. Kenwright & Woods are also sitting on a massively profitable investment for their shareholding.

I am certain the Glazers probably think Man Utd was one their most lucrative business deals they have ever pulled off. Utd are valued at around £1.8 billion!

FSG will soon have doubled the valuation of Liverpool in 3 years. Bought for £300m - that now looks like the bargain of the century.

Arsenal's board have made a fortune after many years of success (with a negative net transfer spend most seasons) Arsenal have announced an impressive set of financial figures for the period ending November 30 2013, with the accounts revealing the club boasts a huge £120.6 million cash reserve.

I'm supposed to be dead busy but popped into TWeb and saw mention of the Shake 'n' Vac lady.

I've had a "thing" for Ms Logan since that advert (no idea why!) – that's me off on a postprandial sexual reverie!

If the money paid by the major shareholders had been invested properly with even a moderate level of risk at the time of their takeover they would have made more. Therefore they have effectively lost money. Had they listened to the cries "to invest more" from fans the debt would be bigger than it is now and the value of their shares reduced. No free lunch, sadly.

With regard to club valuations they are all hypothetical until the club is up for sale. Man U are something of an exception because of the public quotation but as far as I am aware the Glaziers own the stock and there are no trades to speak of, which begs the question about how a value is arrived at. Don’t forget that in order to be competitive where it matters next year they will need to buy a new defence and midfield. That of itself could cost £200m net and, borrowed to finance the deal, reduce the value of the club to a purchaser by the same amount. The value of the bought players would ameliorate that but the likely decline in value as contacts run down and the inevitable increase in wages would undermine it.

Arsenal MAY Become an exception. They have increased the value in the club by going into debt to build the stadium, a valuable asset indeed, but only of use if you can fill it. In order to do that Arsenal will need to break out of their current cycle of failure at the top table by spending big each year and paying the wages to go with it.

It just isn’t a business. My point earlier was that spending money on a football club is not "investment" in any sense of the word that we would understand if it was our pension funds.

Liam #98, who do you give credit to for King's Dock? Desperation Kirkby? NTL? Fortress Fund? The badge fiasco? The Park End development? The hand to mouth existence? etc. etc.

I also suspect that Everton bought Everton for our very own Bill.

Now, the Aston Villa situation is altogether different: Randy Lerner isn't looking for "investment" and doesn't want to stay on. So, even if Villa are sold in the short term, no real conclusions should be drawn from that, apart from what I mentioned above regarding BK's true intentions.

Does anyone really believe that in all these years no serious offer from serious people was made for Everton FC? I, for one, don't. Mind you, like many here I'm not too keen on olygarchs, chicken growers or the various kinds of snake-oil salesmen that have been pestering football in this country. But there are good examples of foreign investors as well, like Southampton, for instance. And I wouldn't mind an American taking over. Americans want to make money, they don't buy football clubs (a sport they hardly know at all) for the fun of it. In order to make money they have to invest (the Glazers are a different thing and Man. Utd. didn't exactly need investment, but they haven't brought the club into administration or anything close to that, either). And, of course, there are many moneyed people in the UK, although that kind of people seems to have been taking a distance from football.

Leicester's 'new' stadium was built in 2002, some 8 years before they were bought by King Power (while not even a PL club) and was not owned by the club at the time of purchase.

The KP owner has put in £75M which he has converted to equity as well as buying the ground last season.

So, all-in-all, they've done a lot better with their owner than we have with ours, even though they didn't own their new stadium.

As for Villa, well they've been on the market for 1 week. Wanna bet who will be sold first? Us or them???

Does Dolly Parton shit in the woods?

Now sit back enjoy the World Cup and wonder who we might get on loan on August 31st.