Reality Cheque

They don’t talk like that anymore.

Bigger fish will be required.

For me, watching Stones, for all his inexperienced faults, provided the only crumbs of comfort last season. But I think he will go, because the club will decide to take the cash. The real crucial matter is how we react to such a loss - it must not derail the season, must not be an excuse for anything, and the money has to be used quickly and wisely. That will be the real test of the manager.

As Chairman the buck stops with him – or it should. With the likes of M&S and recently Tesco, when things go wrong, the shareholders demand heads roll. In our case, the major shareholders are the board members! Classic poacher and gamekeeper...

Nothing will change till the luvvie is in his box and the lid firmly screwed down. Kenwright loves being in the limelight too much to do the decent thing and walk away with his friends Earl, Green & Woods. None of whom care as true supporters. The situation sickens me.

If the competition were on a level playing field, it would mean something. But it’s not. That’s why Chelsea’s success is 100 times less meaningful than Everton’s was, and why when you watch Chelsea lifting the trophy you get the impression of a 6th grader delighted at winning a schoolyard fight against a 1st grader.

Martinez wants to do it the hard way and believes he can, and while he has only a minuscule chance of achieving it, it would be more satisfying than any victory a new billionaire owner could ’win’ us.

That post just about sums up some of the cowards in our support these days. Pathetic.

Reading that shite shows just why in many quarters we are seen as a ’small club’.

'Mersey Millionaires' - Jesus, the curse of alliteration.

Sorry but we were never the Man City/Chelsea of another era.

Quite simply, the existence of the maximum wage meant any club who dominated football for a period, did so because they had great coaches and/or had bought or unearthed great players.

As for us, well firstly, we weren't the only team to set transfer records, many others did - as seasons passed, transfer fees went up and records were broken as a matter of course.

Plus Moores money meant us being able to get the occasional Alan Ball or a Martin Dobson, it didn't mean us being able to buy two teams consisting entirely of Alan Balls (so to speak)

(also, when we got Alan Ball, we probably doubled the money he was on at..er..Blackpool).

Simply put, the reason there's no comparison (imo) is because of the degree of wealth we're talking about.

Were we wealthy compared to say.... Stoke?

I'm guessing yes.

Did our money guarantee us finishing higher than Stoke?

Absolutely not.

Did our money guarantee us top four?

Absolutely not.

Did our money guarantee us trophies.

Absolutely not.

John Moores was a wealthy man but a multi-millionaire not a multi-billionaire.

Plus he was never flinging his money round like a drunken sailor.

The difference is that John Moores spent money hoping that it would help bring Everton success, but never spending so much money that stopped other sides having a chance of winning the title.

The money spent at Chelsea/City says 'Give us them fucking trophies NOW!' and if you look at what they've won since they had money, it works.

We have never had that (financial) power.

The sooner BK realizes that the better. Isn’t that the real issue?

As has been pointed out, we were wealthy back in the day, but we were never the equivalent of City/Chelsea. They (City in particular) effectively have infinite money, and there is no degree to which any club can compete over anything but the short term without a similar cash injection.

But I'm also with Shane (1) - I don't want us to be another City or Chelsea, I really don't. Better to hope that one day, perhaps, football might fix itself from this skewed, completely artificial "competition". It's not "pathetic", Ste (15), it's believing our identity is more important than wanting to be a rich man's plaything in a fixed game.

Chelsea are are a small club with a rich owner. I’m with Shane at the start of this thread. Aspiring to achieve will do for me. I get angry because we do not achieve the best we are capable of. Our very best can hurt the the nauseating Sky, TalkSport, buy it all, utterly brain-dead morons who offer sad pointless punditry. Would it not be special to do it the right way?

I do see us as being a step down from the likes of Chelsea, Man City, Man Utd, Arsenal and even Liverpool and Tottenham. To be a success in this league, you need money and that’s something I’ve never in my lifetime known Everton to have.

If Everton were bought by a billionaire tonight who spent fortunes on a new ground and a new squad I’d sure as hell still watch and support them, but yes I agree the success obtained would be a bit more hollow than if we won something as "the plucky little underdog".

Like you Jim, my patience with being "the best of the rest" is starting to wear thin, and I want to see our club back in it’s rightful place, winning cups, trophies, and creating the history we’re so fond of for the generations to come to look back on.

Oh and yes, I’d love to wipe that smug smile off that git Mourinho’s face.

Atletico Madrid won La Liga without the finances of Barca or Real. Yes, the premier league is a tougher competition, but I believe it can be done.

It would be heroic to win it in such a manner. It would be inspiring and a moment never forgotten.

I believe that some of the young players are buying into the concept. I think Martinez has done a great job selling his vision, unfortunately I’m not convinced he’s capable of delivering. But I’ll keep dreaming.

Buying the title will always feel like cheating. Nobody would respect us for it. It would never feel like the other 9.

Irrespective of our size and status, I think we (and other clubs) should be treated with respect. The way Chelsea have behaved about Stones (publicising the bid, JMs comments, getting Cahill to "tap up" in the media etc) is way out of line.

They are entitled to enquire about him and put in bids but it should be done out of the media. I hope and believe that we should treat lower division teams with the respect also.

I couldn't help but see the similarities between between the two out-of-touch leaders of both political parties – and the recent decline for both could, in my opinion, have been avoided.

Two years ago, I said to my fellow Labour supporting friend that if Ed Miliband was a true Labour supporter, he would stand down and let someone else lead the party. He was continually ridiculed by opponents and had no chance at all of leading the party to electoral victory.

The same is true of our glorious Chairman. Ridiculed by opponents, and miles behind in terms of ability and substance.

I'm not holding my breath for Bill Kenwright to do the same as Ed Miliband did after the general election, but I really think it's about time he did the decent thing.

Ask a City fan what it felt like to be a City fan 10 years ago and he will tell you it was as frustrating as it is to be an Everton fan now. He would have had to put up with relegations too while his city rival, Man Utd, was winning things. There is a part of every City fan, regardless of how he views the club’s money nowadays, who will like the success compared to 10 years ago.

Ask a Chelsea fan what it was like to be a Chelsea fan 15 years ago. They were regarded as being one step up from horrible Milwall and had to watch other London clubs be successful and glamourous in the top flight. As with City fans, there is a part of every Chelsea fan, regardless of he views the clubs money nowadays, who will like the success compared to 15 years ago.

As Everton fans, we can say that we are too proud of our history to want a billionaire takeover. We can say that we are too apathetic to care if it happens at this stage. But let’s not pretend that we aren’t all a little bit envious of how the fortunes of two once quite similar clubs to us have turned out.

I believe that you have summarised what many of us Blues have been feeling, that we are unfortunately being left behind. Money does not grow on trees, but with just under a month left before the season starts how disappointing is to stomach that the only transfer speculation for Everton is centered around our best players exiting the club? Meanwhile it appears everyone else outside of the top 4 or 5 including the likes of Palace, Newcastle etc are buying decent players? I won't event mention the other lot and who they are buying.

Last season was challenging and highlighted the real need for more depth in the squad, which we still desperately need. Another hard season on the horizon.

I'm sure we are a little bit envious, but for me personally 'a little bit' covers it.

I'm certainly nowhere near as envious as I was of Liverpool in 70s.

Back then, we probably had a bit more money than them and certainly better training facilities, yet they seemed to win the title every year (and if they didn't win the league, they'd win something else).

It frustrated the fuck out of me and I'd argue they were jammy (true!) and got refereeing decisions (true!) but I knew deep down that no one could jam their way to that much success.

The reality was they had great managers, coaches and scouts and instilled in everyone there the idea that 'team is everything'.

But let us be clear - Chelsea and City are simply buying trophies (and their supporters know it).

If money is absolutely no object for a couple of sides and they can choose just about anyone they fancy, while most of the teams they play, are (by comparison) paupers, where is the 'glory'?

If Everton woke up in the morning to a billionaire owner and finished the season having bought the title, part of me would be happy. I may be sickened in equal measure but part of me would still be happy.

Liverpool in the seventies and eighties, Man Utd in the nineties and noughties, both had that winning mentality that you talk about in spades. There was a ruthless streak at both clubs that pushed them on to greater things. If Everton woke up in the morning with that ruthless winning mentality and had won the title by the end of the season, would I be happier than if we had bought the title? Yes, I would, in full measure.

You are right. Given a choice, fans at most clubs, Man City, Chelsea and Everton included, would much prefer winning properly over buying trophies.

Would I like Everton to be tainted by Arab money in this way, having to sit next to and listen to some gobshite talking rubbish at every game? Not sure I would. I’d like the Prem to be a fair league though, where we aren’t just cannon fodder for the wealthy clubs with only the possibility of beating one of them as our highlight of the season.

Oh, and can we please stop banging on about the Merseyside Millionaires? Moores didn’t throw loads of money at Everton, he was too shrewd a business man for that. He stood as guarantor when we took out loans to buy players. Not the same thing. Yes, we did break transfer records but so did other clubs. The days when a Villa, Forest, Derby, us etc can come from nowhere and win the League are gone.

It is also a joke to see some of the condescending posts on this site (1 & 14) that don’t want silverware unless it is under fairer rules. Well it is not fair, so you put up with Kenwright’s regime until he or the club dies.

Having said that, no newcomer – even Alan Ball – was ever allowed to disturb the club's wage structure and I can't think of any of our 'glory years' players who we ever suspected came for the money.

A different time, a different game.

Anton (#28), your suggestion that we became ’small fish’ under Moyes is utter nonsense. Moyes took us from relegation battles to a team battling to be the best outside of the top 4.

Nobody wants to be considered ’small fish’, but having some rich foreign oligarch win it for us will always feel tainted.

If so, could you explain why and what it is that I’m afraid of?

I’ll be under the covers while I wait on your reply.

That's the reality that we have to accept.

I’ve been a supporter since 1960 but have lived in Australia for 36 years but still feel the pain when we lose. We have great tradition and history; one day, it will be our day. I live in hope.

So, basically we are in a Catch-22 situation of needing sustained success to build a big global brand but needing the commercial success of a global brand to have the money to compete. That is unless some crazy rich multi-billionaire takes over which IMHO is highly unlikely and, as a few have mentioned above, comes with its own issues.

The vast majority of our success in the 60s and 80s that I watched was "bought" and then bought from us by others leaving us where we are now and I don’t believe that it’s ever been any different.

I wonder sometimes what do people expect the current board to deliver and how this is to be achieved without the resources? We’re resource constrained and only resources win things.

Additionally, can I also ask (seriously) if you think it is responsible (in a modern footballing setting) to own a medium-sized, top-flight football club, if you are unable to fund it or invest in it to help it progress?

As with all things football, the scale of the finances involved & the disparities between the have-nots, haves & have shit-loads is greater than would ever have been imaginable in previous eras.

Martin does have a point that Everton FC has never been in a position where the money flowed freely; however, it almost always had shrewd businessmen on the board of directors who instigated a plan to ensure that the club didn’t fall behind its rivals and in many cases they sought to be ahead of the game.

Having empty pockets is not a good enough reason to oversee the club in such a period of decline. Admittedly Kenwright and Company have probably done exceptionally well to keep Everton in the top half of the table given their lack of resources but how do they explain being unable to find a proper backer during 16 years at the helm?

Just because nobody was interested in buying the club back in 1999 doesn’t mean there have been no interested parties since.

As has been mentioned, John Moores provided loans to the club at zero interest rates; compare that to today’s board where they have saddled the club with loans from Vibrac et al with higher than average interest rates. That alone is a testament to the lack of business knowledge or collective will to do what is best by the club, but to marry that to the loss of most if not all of its tangible assets stinks of a total disregard to the heritage of the club.

The current board appear to be quite happy to limp along the road to mediocrity until some unknown group or person comes to the rescue. Unfortunately the team on the pitch have also reflected the lack of ambition, often just doing enough to satisfy the supporters and sometimes exceeding expectations but never really reaching the heights.

The players can’t shoulder all the blame as at key periods during the last decade or so when a relatively small investment may have pushed the team towards Champions League qualification it never materialised and often the team was undermined by the sale of key players to keep the omnipresent wolf from the door.

Everton FC may never have been a super-club, but it certainly didn’t accept mediocrity on such a regular basis either, which is what has happened in the last decade and a half.

We're a club with an excellent history, but that's what it is history. We're no better than the deluded bunch over the park in Castle Greyskull, if we cling on to it.

You don't have to travel more than a mile to realise where we are as a club, over the park they're undertaking a massive development of their ground and they've been extremely active in the transfer market and they're not even in the CL this season.

Then you drive to our ground, moss and mould on the plastic, which is heavily discoloured in places as you go above the brickwork and they've finally decided to fix the plastic roof on the upper balcony. Our transfer activity another central midfielder on a free.... and around £5 million tops on Del Boy, while we watch the big clubs circling like vultures over our best players.

In general terms, I think I would agree with that sentiment but I can't see much prospect of it happening any time soon. Whether that be due to BK's reluctance to let go or the genuine lack of 'monied fools', I have no idea.

In Scotland, the great institution that is Rangers fell apart because the principal shareholder saw his other businesses collapse and, in great haste 'to be rid' he sold / gave away the club to a shyster.

Nearer to home, we've seen the 'wrong sort' of Americans succeeding the Moores family's other sporting interest... whilst, just up the M6, Indian chicken pluckers have made a laughing stock of former Football League Champions.

So 'getting rid' may just be the easy part. Then, the luck of a lottery winner is required to effect improvement and avert disaster.

For those who feel no price is too much to pay to see the back of 'Our Bill', there is always the prospect of the 'poison chalice' solution. This is based on my observation that it's usually managers who 'do for' owners rather than pressure from fans and/or bank managers!

A bad run of results, perhaps followed by the dreaded relegation, is usually enough to loosen the grip of the most resolute of 'owners' as they watch their investment going down the pan. And it could happen here.

So far, BK has done well with his choice of managers. For all his faults, DM stabilized the club and traded well. Martinez built on that in his first season although the gloss went off him second time round with a long run of poor performances by his team.

So we are presently 'on slippy grass'. Lose two or three of our better players with no time left to replace them and the danger signals will be on show. And, if the rest of the squad don't show more determination than was on view last time round, it will be the panic button the board will reach for. If that were to happen, God forbid, I don't think it will be only Martinez who will feel the draught, do you ?

I have no fondness for Kenwright but if you take off the blue specs we could be doing a damn sight better than we are without a new owner. This season will be make or break for RM. If we continue in the vein of the last, it will be curtains for him by Christmas.

Who would realistically buy us anyway without plans for a new stadium? We are fighting the "2nd club in the city" scenario. The only team to successfully turn that around are Man City in recent times and they only managed that by Arab money. Do we really want that?

I know you’ve always been an avid supporter of Kenwright and Co but to claim they haven’t been bad for the club is totally out of touch with reality.

At a time when the Premier League is awash with money, we have sold off all of our assets and are now paying exorbitant leases and loan interest let alone an unexplained operating cost figure that has risen from 1 million when Kenwright took over to over 24 million A YEAR at last count.

Despite "searching 24/7" for the last 15 years and being "Everton's best saleman" he has failed to enlist any financial support for the club but has enlisted the dubious shareholding of Earl (and Green?).

Besides not putting a penny of their own money into the club, the board have not shown an ounce of planning, strategy nor good control of the club.

What is it that this board do besides own shares?

Nothing like stridently and confidently making a claim then not even attempting to justify it. But maybe you’re right: maybe we did buy our success in the '80s.

Let’s see... the first million pound player (Trevor Francis) was sold from Birmingham City to Nottingham Forest in 1979 so given that, all the following influential Everton players (all signed after 1979) must have cost us millions... mustn’t they?

Peter Reid £60,000
Paul Power £65,000
Derek Mountfield £30,000
Andy Gray £250,000
Kevin Sheedy £100,000
Neville Southall £150,000
Kevin Ratcliffe £0
Gary Stevens £0
Trevor Steven £300,000

Etc.

I hope I am wrong but it wont be long before it all catches up on us and the big R stares us in the face Maybe Chelsea have us by the balls over Stones because we owe them for Lukaku?

There is no way we can continue as we are without a proper business model and a new rich owner. As for Goodison Park its now an embarrassment to the Premier League. I think it's only us and Pompey in the whole wide world who don’t have a new or rebuilt stadium. Speaks volumes about the Kenwright regime doesnt it?

Goodbye, John Stones; nice while it lasted.!!!

You probably wouldn’t be able to build a competitive Championship team with that business model any more.

I’d swop one thousand Bill Kenwright's for one John Moores.

It was obviously, patently and definitely NOT your (initial) ’point’ and to say it was is genuinely insulting as it assumes people are so dumb they can’t see the difference.

You stated initially that the vast majority of our success in the '80s was ’bought’

I responded giving you a list of bargain-priced Everton stars from the time, showing we didn’t buy success and you respond - ’yeah that was my point’.

Eh!?

Andrew (56) - ’Imagine buying a keeper from Bury who had been a binman a year before, a central defender from Tranmere, a couple of RS reserves, a kid from Burnley and two crocks that everybody else was ready to throw on the scrapheap and turning them into the best team in Europe. You probably wouldn’t be able to build a competitive Championship team with that business model any more’.

You’re right, you wouldn’t and the reason is (as I stated earlier - 32) because the degree of wealth Man City & Chelsea have, means the gap between them and the majority simply can’t be bridged.

Of course in the history of ’the top tier’ some teams have had more money than others, but never to the degree that it guaranteed those teams success or stopped other teams competing (for trophies).

I’m losing the thread now mate, what is it you’re actually saying about Everton and it’s current owners? That the club is as well run as it has been in its long and illustrious past? That the current regime have added value to their investment apart from the TV millions?

If BK and his mates have done such a good job in the past 16 years, do you honestly believe that so many posters would keep banging on about their failures? I for one wouldn’t.

If they had done a good job and the club was moving forwards, I would be on here praising them... but there is little evidence to suggest they have done a good job and the many failures have been well documented a thousand or more times.

The fact remains that, without the guaranteed TV money Everton would be in a far worse state than they currently are. TV money that provides a luxury not afforded to any of our previous owners and a luxury that has been squandered to keep your hero in power 11 years longer than he ought to have been.

James, we did have some decent results in the Europa League, especially v Wolfsburg and I do think the competition cost us a few places in the Premier League. I’m not saying things were fine and dandy but I do think any manager of ours is pissing against the wind due to the financial situation that prevails at our club.

Moyes did an outstanding job in the league without a doubt, maybe we expect every manager to match what he did, he was lauded far and wide for our positions in the Premier League.

As far as buying success is concerned, yes, I’d take it gladly because I’m afraid it's the only way.

As it is, maybe we should be satisfied with being the ’best of the rest’; they should give a trophy, then the smaller clubs might win something! Only joking but the Premier League is a three-division competition.

This isn’t 1985 anymore. If we don’t join the gravytrain, we’ll get left even further and further behind. Which should surely end in relegation at some point,

I see no reason why we should not up our ambition to do at least the same plus have a damn good go for the League Cup or whatever it's called now. I'd settle for that next season.

Firstly, he’s alongside Jags who he can only learn off and get better, but more importantly he has lapses of concentration and can be guilty of over playing; obviously he’ll grow out of it-but will he be allowed to make mistakes at Chelsea? We’ve seen what happened to Lukaku when he missed the penalty.

How many other bright young (especially English) talent have gone to a ’big club’ and sunk without a trace?

The buck stops with the Chairman because of all the false dawns Everton have endured. Starting with the NTL deal, right through to Walton Hall Park.

Any PLC would have removed the Chairman but we cannot influence such a move as the board own the shares.

Yes, I understand people who say- Kenwright does not pick the team, but EVERYTHING to do with EFC goes across his desk including piss poor deals such as Kitbag and mortgaging ticket sales for a loan at sky-high interest and the choice of manager!

If you had the chance of buying the title or winning it with integrity, which would you choose?

It may be romantic and unlikely, but I still believe a team can challenge without becoming a billionaire’s toy/hobby.

Did you enjoy Man City bullying us into selling Lescott? Are you enjoying the way Chelsea are treating us with such contempt?

That’s the way a club works when they buy the title. They force ’smaller clubs’ to sell their best players. I would be ashamed if Everton ever acted in such a way.

'Was much better under Moyes he knew how to organize a team. That’s the best we can hope for without the zillions required.
The sooner BK realizes that the better. Isn’t that the real issue?'

If Moyes had been in charge he'd have accepted Chelsea's first bid for Stones and likely cajoled JS himself into joining 'the better club'. Moyes didn't like to stand in the way of a player's progress remember.

At least RM doesn't seem to share this particular sycophantic trait with his predecessor. Despite constant media courting of our top players (Baines, Coleman, Barkley, Mirallas, Stones, Fellaini), we've managed to keep hold of all but one and he was made to hand in a transfer request. In my Everton supporting memory this is the first time that has happened. The jury may still be out on Martinez's ability to coach but his intentions are clear.

RM understands that to be a top 4 side you've to keep your top players. That he can't yet attract/purchase several more £30-£40 million players per season to turn us into instant title contenders is hardly his fault.

I only hope that the club embrace the same philosophy; seeing Stones as a 'saving' of £30-£40 million as oppose to looking at him as a £30-million saleable asset. Of course if the player wants to move it's a different story, in which case every player has his price - see Suarez, Ronaldo, Ozil, Sterling, Ramos etc. Until I hear it from a reliable source though (i.e. the player himself), I'll assume he's happy / patient enough to stick with Everton for at least another season.

Either way it's refreshing to see how Martinez has handled the saga having seen previous regimes bend over backwards for the money boys.

Even if Mr Kenwright ever finds our sugar daddy, until we actually achieve success again the best players will always want to be in the bright lights of London, or one of the Manchester clubs.

It can be done without spending vast amounts of money as Atletico Madrid have proved in Spain, but to do it all have to singing from the same hymn sheet and the team has got to be kept together to grow.

You live in the distant past. You need to get in the year 2015.

I don't want us to be 'plucky little Everton' a minute longer. I want us to be mixing it with, and be, one of the top clubs.

It surely isn't a crime....is it?

Maybe it is for cowards like Shane who aren't desperate for success. But not everyone feels like that.

I want my highs to be getting top 4, winning the league, cups!!! So please, please, sheikh whoever you are, come and get us and put us back where we belong!! Role on Scotland friendlies...YAY

Money doesn't guarantee success - just look at Liverpool. Every season they throw millions at the Anfield revolving door with very little return. Man City are still a long way off winning the big one in Europe and how long did it take Chelsea to win theirs? Spurs have bundles more money than us but haven't achieved much more. The most successful team in the last 25 years had money but you would have to say the prime reason for their success was Ferguson.

What money does do, and increasingly so, is give you a huge advantage. Not only does it get you the best players but you can also fill your reserves with top players to stop other teams strengthening theirs. The moment everything changed was the advent of Sky Sports and frankly we simply failed to capitalise our position compared to the majority of the entire football league and have been left behind. Had we taken that opportunity no one on this site would be wringing their hands for the clubs below us - otherwise we would be doing it now as we would probably still classify as a Top 10 club.

The bottom line is we should probably count our lucky stars that we've managed to tread water for the last 15 years or so. We can scrap amongst the also rans, have a run at probably 4th at best and retain top flight status by the law of averages that we only need to be the fourth worst team in the league to stay up and given our SIZE (money again) should be able to achieve that as a minimum but to be at the very, very top in England where, unlike Spain, there are a number of serious contenders you need a lot of cash, a lot of luck (signing a Suarez) or both.

We cannot sit at that table without a new owner, and should we stumble on the diamonds in the rough that could take us there until we do they will be plucked from us by the clubs with greater money, status or both.

For me, BK's only fault is that he’s tried to court popularity and tried to promise what he couldn’t deliver instead of telling the unadulterated truth. This resulted in totally unrealistic expectations from a minority of our fans.

What I say is that he can’t be realistically expected to deliver a "successful" top 4 team given the resource restraints that we operate under. My own view is that EFC is a very well run ship with, unfortunately, an incompetent chancer of a manager.

You must be BK's press officer!! In 19 years of being on the board or chairman, we have constantly been given lies by the man. With ALL the evidence, how can you say this poor excuse for a board has done a good job?

King’s Dock
Money’s in the bank
Destination Kirkby
I don’t know, I’m only the Chairman

The manager being an incompoetent chancer is a red herring in my view. I don’t remember Moyes being called an incompetent chancer and nor do I think, is Martinez.

Moyes decided to put it this way: "Bringing a knife to a gunfight."

I think that purports to us not having sufficient money to buy the players to compete with the top four.

I don’t see Martinez having any more cash than Moyes had, in order for us to join the top table. In fact, it is almost certainly the opposite case. He will have less than the likes of West Ham, Stoke, Leicester, Southampton, Sunderland, Newcastle and probably others.

The question to me, is not about how competent (or incompetent) Martinez is considered to be. The question is how much funds are we able to give a manager to build the squad.

I don’t think we would do any better should Moyes return from the wilderness, or if we replaced Martinez with any other young, aspiring manager. What’s that saying "you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s arse?"

The manager’s ability or lack of it, is only a small part of the position we find ourselves in. We are where we are because of the selfish, egocentric behaviour of one man: That is our current Chairman.

"The reality was they had great managers, coaches and scouts and instilled in everyone there the idea that ’team is everything’."

Now that is something worth hoping for.

If Everton had £50 million to spend this summer they could move several steps forward and pass them in the pecking order.

Some decent points but I tell you one thing:- if Moyes was here or DID come back, we'd have a better organised defence.

Not that I'm recommending his return.

Though I’d still be thinking of what kind of knife he’d have for the gunfight. Probably a Swiss Army one!

I think there are plenty who like Martinez, including me, and plenty thought Moyes was top dollar, excluding me. But that’s just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You’re right in essence though, things would not be that different as it’s the resources that divides the Premier League as much as if not more than the managers.

I just couldn't resist it:

Link

There’s a spare seat Upper Gwladys (Row G).

Eugene there would be another one in row R Upper Bullens.

I couldn't care less what your opinion is but at least have the balls to back up your repeated name-calling.

You must be a carpenter! Nail hit firmly on head!!

Martin,as a Tory party bigwig has commented recently... "He was economical with the truth then."

That sounds like me when I got my dick caught in me zip.

One other question: Where does all the money go each year? Not on players or the ground?

For the record I want the success back, I want what Chelsea and Man City have got because I want the very best for this great club of ours.

So come on, Sepp Kenwright, stop dreaming and start delivering.

Anyway obviously Moyes isn’t here but I agree with your main point which was that it is the limitations of the board that really defines our upper ceiling. Even big mouth Jose would struggle to break the top 4 given our comparatively limited resources.

A net spend of under £1m for every season that he was in charge shows how prudent he was overall in the transfer market. Roberto up to this point has spent a significantly greater amount per season notwithstanding any major sales of players which may happen before the end of the current window.

Martinez: Bought £66m, Sold £42m, Net:£24m (S) £8m
Moyes: Bought £131m, Sold £122m, Net: £9m (S) £0.87m

(S) = per season spend All figures rounded up or down to the nearest million.

On another note West Brom have suspended takeover talks with Chairman Jeremy Peace saying "It is now clear to me that this potential purchaser [Chinese consortium?] is unable to fulfil the terms of the agreement at this time."

The question of the relative success, failure of our past and current manager, I accept, is a point that could be developed on a thread and probably already has loads of times.

My post was mainly about how I see the major factor regarding the future of Everton in the Premier League, is down to the Board, not the manager. I could make a counter argument of course re Martinez/Moyes and I do believe that Martinez will not take us to 4th or better. I put that down to the Board and their financial investment in Everton. Whether the West Brom or the Aston Villa takeovers are not going ahead doesn’t alter my view.

Upper Bullens, Row J, by the way.

Sure he has had a great time managing Chelski with the Russian billionaire backing but I sometimes wonder how these managers would do managing a poor club for a couple of seasons, like Crewe. Some of them get arrogant and have an underlying disrespect for many of the less fortunate clubs.

Whilst Moyes won nothing at Goodison, he did make Everton a very difficult team to beat with a very small budget available although the team performances were not very exciting to watch.

So far, Roberto hasn’t had to wave goodbye to a player he would rather keep, but it will happen, perhaps not this season, but it will occur and all of the money recouped will not be recycled into the transfer kitty; if it was, what would be the point of selling the player in the first place? Unless of course the player himself wanted to move.

Can I ask why you believe we stopped being a ’big club’ and when?

Additionally, can I also ask if you think it is responsible (in a modern footballing setting) to own a medium-sized, top-flight football club, if you are unable to fund it or invest in it to help it progress?

I want to understand your reasoning for unwavering support for Kenwright. I think the two questions are reasonable to ask someone who sits on your side of the fence?

Winston @106. Your questions of Martin are perfectly reasonable but convey an expectation that no-one should take up 'an ownership' unless they are prepared to throw big money in for signings - the only aspect for which most spectators give a hoot.

I don't think too many directors of clubs make a bean out of their investment and there is a distinct shortage of fools wishing to blow the family fortune. Thus, we are reduced to the starry-eyed fan who, totally lacking in business acumen, just wants the club 'to wipe its face.' Chicken and egg, or what?

Link

Liverpool have spent more than that in this window alone.

Everton Combined Totals 1992 - Present
Bought £309,045,500
Sold £246,086,000
Nett £62,959,500

How the Feckin' Hell has our debt increased so much and why do we cry poverty? Are we paying protection money to the Russians?

Our income for the same period is north of £1.2 billion

Does anybody have any answers? And do I now need to go into hiding for asking the question about protection?

When we stopped being a big club? I’d say in 1992 when the EPL started, we were never equipped to compete financially against the group of clubs that became the big clubs. In reality it was probably 1988 when we didn’t get into Europe and when Kendall left; we were a bit of a basket case when we started our success in the 80’s but while it could have launched us back to the top, Heysel meant that it never could.

Regarding the second question, there is no law or moral requirement that any director has to invest his own money in the club and in Everton’s case anybody who did this would be classed as a financial lunatic or a wonderful but still crazy benefactor. Everton’s investment is its income from all sources and doesn’t have to come from the individual board members. The board only has to run the club in accordance with the laws and to the best of their ability which for me they do.

So, the answer is Yes, the club is being run responsibly, as the accounts show. If you can show otherwise then please put it on the table and convince me that my support is unreasonable. Remember, there is no legal or moral requirement that the board has to achieve success either, only do as well as can reasonably be expected in a competitive environment.

I do not have unwavering support for BK or any of the other board members and will criticise them when needed. However, I believe that they are doing as well as any reasonable person could expect them to do in the circumstances and nobody can ask more than that. If you read the accounts, you’ll see that none of the directors takes any income from the club; what do you want to see, them get no fees and throw all of their money into the bottomless pit that is a second-tier soccer club?

In the circle of life re your last sentence. Who has made us a "second tier club" with poor strategy lack of ambition and second tier marketing.

The answer: THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

I appreciate you taking the time to answer and I actually agree with you to a certain point too.

I agree about the timing of the start of our decline and the circumstances there to. The European ban effectively stopped a period of dominance for EFC which could have propelled us to being in Man Utd’s shoes.

I also agree with your assertions of a club owner being under no legal or moral obligation to invest personal wealth into a football club.

In fact, I’d agree with you 100% if it was any year between 1900 and 1992. Kenwright would've been superb, but in modern times his position/style doesn’t fit.

He’s not a modern Chairman. He doesn’t understand club finance (his words from the BU meeting) and as such is not in a position to progress the club (on a commercial basis).

Considering the modern football landscape (ie, the financial necessity of investment beyond share-purchasing in order to compete effectively), I just fail to understand the reasons for a skint bloke to own a football club... other than power.

I think the figures are a fair representation save for the undisclosed figures which haven't yet been revealed. What it does tell us is for the 23 years that the PL has been in existence, Everton have spent £2.63m per season.

Only West Brom (£2.4m), Stoke (£2.21m), Leicester (£1.93m), Swansea (£0.78m), Norwich (£0.60m), and Bournemouth (£0.25m) have spent less, whilst Southampton (£-0.46m) and Watford (£-0.60m) have actually made a profit on transfers. It also has to be noted that all of of those clubs have spent at least one season outside of the Premier League.

Palace (£2.78m) and West Ham (£3.2m) have outspent the Blues during the same period and only four clubs have spent upwards of £15m per season whilst Arsenal (£5.6m) have spent less than Spurs (£5.28m) although they do have the Emirates to show for their money. Sunderland (£6.44m) and Aston Villa (£6.21m) have both outspent the London clubs with Newcastle (£5.68m) sandwiched in between them.

Of course, wages and other players costs have to be taken into consideration but as a result of our spending power we have mostly been overachieving in the Premier League era.

They tried to buy success for the fans by swamping the club with debt and selling assets but they seem to be adopting a very sensible strategy now with success in most areas.

Better marketing doesn’t mean more sales btw; no amount of marketing will sell Everton shirts. Most areas of the world would say "Everton, who are they?" They will sell shirts when they develop an image and that will come only with success.

We still overachieve based on salary, but not by as much as if you measure based on net spend.

I care little about fans in the Far East, who probably buy counterfeit shirts from the local market, but I do care about the direction of our club. Fans need to be a part of the club, a fan-based ownership is needed. We should be paying prices like those in Germany.

Fuck executive boxes; we should design a big stand that will capture the imagination of the kids, and want every neutral fan to want to come to Goodison to experience the special atmosphere.

We don’t need a Sheikh; there’s a ton of money coming in, we just need to have more imagination in the boardroom and involve the support in the running of the club.

The Toffs that run Everton obviously have no idea how to plan the future, and they are all getting on in years and are probably enjoying the kudos of match-day chatter with their friends. They need to let go, and let some fresh ideas blow in.

It has to be from the top to the bottom. Ideas on a postcard please...

http://ToffeeWeb.com/club/business/annual_reports/AnnualReport93.pdf

As Winston put it: "the financial necessity of investment beyond share-purchasing in order to compete effectively."

Is there any other major business in the world that requires this in order to be successful?

Patrick, have you seen numbers anywhere that would shed light on this? In the Premier League era, how much money has been directly "invested" on the operating side (ie, not to buy the club or its shares), as opposed to commercial income, sponsorships, placements, winnings etc?

I desperately want the club to do better and it sickens me to see us in our present position but I recognise that EFC has been in the position where its very survival has been on the line and I believe that the current board is now getting us back on to a sustainable footing. That is very unlikely to see us win trophies again but I see there still being great satisfaction in seeing us exceed our potential and be the best of the rest with that tantalizing hope of one day finding a good buyer and making the transition to the top again.

I have always been of the opinion that money comes after good management. Unfortunately this is where our board and management fall short. We don't need Kenwright and cronies running the show but unfortunately they will not appoint top men to do the job.

For the last 20 years at least, our marketing has been criticised by supporters. I am totally convinced that a top marketing director would pay for himself and improve our branding and media profile.

Our financial planning and control has been abysmal with all the assets this board inherited sold off or mortgaged and we now find ourselves paying exorbitant leases and very high interest (particularly to the BVI). Also, nobody has ever presented an explanation as to why Other Operating Costs went from £1 million a year when Kenwright took over to over £24 million a year now.

As far as transfer spend is concerned for us to become on par with say Man City this season we would have to spend considerable more than them because the market value of their team is higher than ours to start with.

The same with Chelsea, Arsenal and any other club that you could argue that their squad is more valuable than ours. That could be changed though if we could produce more Premier Class class players from our own youth system than they do.

In my books if, as a lifelong Evertonian (from the Boys Pen also) I somehow found myself to be Chairman of the club we love, first of all I’d think "Fuckin hell, what an honour... what a privilege... and what a bloody awful responsibility!"

If I was a middling impresario with not a lot of funds but a love of our club, was in that position, then I’d be doing everything in my power, would search every avenue, would look to any proposal that would be of benefit to our club.

The fact that taking a route which offered our club a chance of a lifetime but might mean me standing down as Chairman, then I’d take it. It would be a reasonable guess to think that most Evertonians would do the same.

You say that there is no law or moral requirement for any director to put their own money into the club. Quite true. But this is where you and me diverge opinions I think. Kenwright hasn’t put a penny into the club, I understand. He got the money from Paul Gregg’s (his friend) wife to open up the bid for EFC by True Blue Holdings.

For whatever reason, and I believe that reason to be purely selfish, he refused Gregg’s offer of £30 million on a reverse mortgage, to put in our share for the King’s Dock. Kenwright refused. This, after his statement that "the £30 million required from EFC, is ring-fenced."

Why he refused is a moot point but I believe that Gregg wanted him to stand down and get someone in with more business acumen. No doubt Kenwright loves the club, but so what. It seems to me, that Yes, there is no law or moral requirement to invest in the club. But there is a love of the club that would mean you’d step down if it benefitted the club for you to do so.

I can’t help but think, that all his comments and actions regarding Kings Dock, Fortress Sports Fund, shows me that he prefers to remain Chairman, at the expense of our club. Horrible to think that a Blue would act this way but to me, this is what he has done.

All this searching 24/7 is to me, hot air. There is no action that he has taken which shows me any indication that he would step down if it benefited the club.

Rather the opposite.

It's hard to know the full story on transfer spend, wages, managerial influence, and so on, but what we can see is our final league positions. And it's not so bad, we've been one of few ever-presents with average position okayish. Not great, but better than most.

However, the stadium we attend is ancient and crumbling. The topic of improving it has been continually kicked down the road. Sooner or later, it will have to be addressed even if only for safety reasons. Anyone know if Goodison is now the oldest stadium in the league?

For fuck's sake, get your head from the sandbank!! You really are in a parallel universe.

I would not have this lot run a corner shop let alone OUR FOOTBALL CLUB.

You are in a minority of one. I admire your thick skin but my god you are deluded in your thinking.

Read Jim's post #127. Summed up far more eloquently than I could achieve.

How they got Rich

http://mentalfloss.com/uk/sport/26820/how-the-english-premier-league-clubs-owners-got-rich

What exactly has Kenwright and the board done right recently, apart from appointing Moyes? We become a top seven club in spite of the board, not because of it.

We sold Rooney, and reinvested, and continued an extremely effective buying and selling strategy which resulted in a minimal net spend but progress, which is almost impossible in this league. Moyes transformed us from a bottom 7 club to a top 7, without a pot to piss in.

The board only really gave him the money the club earned from transfer dealings. Our commercial deals have consistently fallen behind where we should be, especially some of the laughable shirt deals we've negotiated.

Kenwright seems like a nice guy, but he is not an effective chairman. He may support Everton, may love them, but him and the board have restricted us. We do not have the resources to compete with the top 4, but have we been given the resources to even compete with the likes of Aston Villa and Sunderland?

Here is a list of net spends from the 03-04 season to the end of 13-14, from the current teams in the Premier League. Notably some have been promoted this season, and few have appeared consistently in the league, unlike us.

1 Manchester City £590,970,000
2 Chelsea £567,759,000
3 Man Utd £385,400,000
4 Liverpool £276,780,000
5 Sunderland £108,510,000
6 Aston Villa £106,925,000
7 Arsenal £90,905,000
8 West Ham Utd £89,105,000
9 Stoke City £78,225,000
10 Tottenham Hotspur £74,500,000
11 West Bromwich Albion £44,656,000
12 Newcastle Utd £39,900,000
13 Leicester City £38,505,000
14 Crystal Palace £39,335,000
15 Everton £32,934,500
16 Norwich City £31,915,000
17 Swansea City £20,170,000
18 Bournemouth £10,330,000
19 Southampton -£8,735,000
20 Watford -£16,355,000

Martin, do you think it's acceptable that we’ve spent less than a third of what Sunderland and Villa have managed? Or less than half of what Stoke have managed?

I don't think Bill is an evil genius. I think that he has made some right decisions, most notably appointing Moyes. Some may critique Moyes, but he was undoubtedly a success, and was appointed by Kenwright. But, irrespective of conceptions of where we should be (and we are not a big club anymore), why can't we compete with the likes of Aston Villa, Sunderland and Stoke in the market? An extra £5-10mil a year over the previous decade may well have got us into the CL group stage, or secured a cup.

I do think we are sounder financially now than we were some years ago. We have a better squad, and have stabilised things. But was that really the board? Or was that the management and our scouting system? And how much brighter would our future be, if we had the typical transfer budget of the top 7 we became over the past decade?

Surely we spent less than anybody else because we had less to spend than anybody else? I can’t criticise them for not spending what they haven’t got or for not spending their own money.

I can’t really accept that the club's relative success under Moyes was purely down to him, he was a servant of the club. There are a lot of others at the club who worked very hard in finding and developing players and making sure that the club runs well, as the buck stops at BK, surely it is far more correct to say that BK was the man responsible for whatever that relative success under Moyes was.

The important thing is that as a club we’re improving significantly, I just worry about the competence of our manager, I believe he could get us relegated.

They inherited a club with a positive net asset position from a previous owner who had put in his own money increasing the asset base which the current board have steadily sold off, reversed the net financial position and have grown the debt year on year.

Nobody but a billionaire with cash to burn could possibly get the equation right and the one called Randy Lerner couldn't keep the fans happy even by blowing a mere £100M of his own money (see above).

As I said yesterday, it's the manager 'who does for 'em'... let's just hope Bill's good luck continue.

Has BK anything to do with that?

Just wondered if you could help me out by letting me have your views on the other thread on here by David Leung, and how if at all it affects the situation and valuations of the club and its assets. I appreciate that some of David's valuations are open to interpretation.

Let's try again - this quote of yours 'Surely we spent less than anybody else because we had less to spend than anybody else? I can't criticise them for not spending what they haven't got or for not spending their own money.'

Now please consider this - and it's really simple - 'why' do we have less to spend?
Why should a club, who has finished in the top seven consistently for almost a decade, have less to spend than teams smaller than them? than teams with lower league placings, less history, and less potential commercial clout?
Given that you acknowledge that we have less to spend than other teams, why don't you stop to consider why we have less to spend?

That kind of logic of yours, the logic of a follower, could be used to excuse the lack of spending of any club in the league. Of any club in the world. It's the kind of logic which would silence the Newcastle faithful, after Ashley drained money from their club and into his pockets (The dissenting crowd and the fear of relegation seems to have changed his stance,)

It might be an idea if you start asking why a little. Why does a team like Everton spend less than its rivals? What is it about Everton's economic model which is clearly failing? Why are the vast majority of posters on this board frustrated with BK and the board? Why can't you see what they see?

Why did a top 7 club, in the richest league in a world, have a net spend of under 5million over a decade?

I'm not advocating for Everton to compete with the likes of United, Chelsea and City. We don't have their money, their clout, or their owners millions/billions. We should be able to compete with the likes of Sunderland, Villa and Stoke though. Not being able to compete financially with them should be a source of shame for BK, and for every Everton fan who blindly refuses to ask why.

You talk of progress - we have made progress on the field. But where is the progress off the field? Where is the stadium? Where is the commercial improvement? Look at our shirt deals, look at our sponsorship figures. Our finances are better because of more television money. We need to make progress off the field or we are doomed to slip backwards.

I wonder if I will get a reply from you Martin. And i'm not sure if it matters. Many of your comments betray some of the most incredible illogical missteps and contradictions I've read on this board.

For the record, I don't expect us to compete financially with United, but I do expect us to spend as much as Villa, Sunderland and Stoke.

I agree with this... the board do a steady job befitting their own skills and attributes.

I also agree that they don’t have to sell the club, invest or lend the club money etc. And MK is right, it doesn’t happen in other sports and shouldn’t in football. It’d be a lot easier if the '80s structure of football finance applied today. Football is being choked by money...

However, I cannot see the logic in owning a football club, in these times, if you do not have the financial backing to complete and/or you have taken the club as far as you can within your skill and attribute level.

To me, having this board is like trying to complete for the title with Brett Angell as your only striker...

I also see that yourself and a few others think that Martinez might get us relegated, well you should hotfoot it to the nearest Betfred for the 66/1 on offer, there also plenty of 55/1+ elsewhere! The bookies also have us to finish in joint 7th place with Southampton, I think they will turn out to be better judges than some fans.

Initially he tried to achieve success by saddling the club with debt and selling off assets and it failed (as it always will). The problem with debt is that, once you have it and no extra income coming in, then it drags you down as most money goes into debt repayment.

I don’t know that Johnson used his own money to invest in the club, if he did it would be almost unheard of in business and he would be financially insane to have done that.

The club is being run very sensibly and sustainably now with debt being repaid and the club being run very well. they learned harsh lessons which were that trying to buy success by debt alone can’t work.

Of course this is BKs responsibility and another one that he has to manage. My own opinion is that RM had a year on the back of DMs good legacy and last year reverted to type. The Asia Cup against Arsenal looked to have been even a further regression than last season. Only an opinion of course and one which I hope gets proven wrong by events

Arsenal, £240M in debt
Chelsea, £958M in debt
Man Utd, £341M in debt

Silverware.... lots.

Everton £28M in debt.... and absolutely nothing to show for it.

Which, as I and many others have opined previously shows that the current board are simply NOT interested in trophies... merely staying in business.

But isn’t the business of football... winning?

If we only sign new players on deadline day, 3 or 4 games into the new season with no time to bed in, then we should give up now.

Don't let the free Cleverley (£80k/week) signing and the piss-poor 3-year Del boy signing fool you. if we don't get at least 2 quality players in well before the season starts then we will be lucky to tread water in this league.

In my view, it could be the most important decision of his reign.

What has our pinch penny, do everything perfect and morally perfect strategy given us since 1995?

1 4th place
1 FA Cup Final
3 Cup semi finals, Liverpool, Utd (and Chelsea in the Capital Cup)
(And 3 failed ground moves)

Wow... Amazing isn't it?

Now look at what the 'evil empire' has done in the same period, (1995-)..
4 Premier League titles
6 FA Cups
3 League Cups
1 Champions League
1 Europa League
1 Cup Winners Cup
(And, a possible new stadium on the way)

Pretty impressive isn't it? Now if you seriously wouldn't want that because it's not morally right you quite frankly deserve the club we've got now.

I guarantee that if we had got the Kings Dock move in 2003, and got a takeover, possibly by Sheik Mansour, which could have happened, and were in City's position now, none of you would be complaining.

BK sold off real assets but the money did not go into the playing squad to achieve sucess, only sales of playing assets goes to fund replacements.

Johnson put his own money into the Club, something that City and Chelsea owners also do, and sold the Club for half his original asking price, taking a loss on his investment, if only our current board would act in the interests of the Club in the same way eh?.

The main criticism of Johnson was he was a red, which is why BK's takeover was popular and why Bill has gotten away with so much bullshit over the years. Bill had also tried to take over the Club from Moores but lost out to Johnson, so I doubt he needed much encouragement to be able to play the "saviour" card.

There is a distinct difference and one which probably underlines the reason why his search has been unsuccessful and will continue to be so, at least until the phrasing changes from "investment" to "buyer".

What BK is looking for is someone to come along, invest millions in the club, but allow BK and the present board to run the club as they see fit.

Is it any wonder that no self-respecting billionaire / multi-millionaire is prepared to invest in those circumstances?

As for putting money in, my understanding is that Chelsea's funding is via Bank facilities that are guaranteed by the "owner" in some way, rather than money being put in from his own pockets.

As you know, being an accountant, when we buy a player his value is amortised over the life of his contract so the value appearing in the accounts decreases each year. In addition, any of our own developed academy players will not have a value in the accounts.

So the value of the playing assets is understated in the accounts. However, were we to sell playing assets to cover the debt, who would take to the field to play matches? Especially seeing as we have to sell players to fund new acquisitions each season?

Theoretically, are you saying that we could have a 25-man squad all on 4-year contracts written down to virtually nothing in the accounts?

The new stadium would be fan-owned and leased to Everton Football Club on a 50-year term at say £1 per year. With EFC responsible for all operating and maintenance costs and taking all profit.

The share money could be held in trust for 24 months and at the end returned if enough capital hasn’t been raised.

You mistakenly argue that there are only two choices; a billionaire takeover and a buy in to the fixed and money dominated (and, I hope, one day unsustainable) model of the current Premier League, or a penny pinching poverty stricken approach.

Why can't we just be run competently as a self sustaining and profitable business? Basically the Arsenal model rather than the Chelsea/City model, if we're looking among the "big four". Or even a German model of running a club with greater fan based ownership; there's no real reason why that can't work in Britain other than the fact that no top club is prepared to try it.

I absolutely do not want us to be a billionaire plaything. I don't think it's worth abandoning the things that make us special as a club, even if we won more trophies. That doesn't mean simply accepting the status quo, though, it means demanding a "better" (and probably more difficult) type of change.

Anyway, are we saying that the Academy players attract no value? What about homegrown players? Also, Seamus Coleman, what do you recon he will be "in" at?

And I guess, for clarity, Ross Barkley, surely he has a value in the Accounts, as selling him would make a dint in the debt? I am not suggesting sell him BTW.

By Deflating the values of the players it seems to me it creates losses which may not be suffered if the player is sold on a the "right" price?

It also makes the Company look worth less than it is??

Regarding Craig’s idea, why would anyone invest in the shares? But thinking of my Season ticket a few years ago, I did not write the cheque to Everton, it went to another Company that whilst in the group, seemed to be separate and owners of Goodison Park, sort of like the club could be sold but the owners retain ownership of Goodison; or am I being delusional?

Tony I’Anson has been promoting the idea of a Fans Trust to do such a thing for a few years now.

I believe he has engaged the club but I guess there are quite a few supporters like me that could back the scheme but won't while BK is in charge.

I wouldn’t have BK anywhere near our club if I had my way.

£17M was repaid at the last statement and debt was reduced accordingly. As you see at UK level though you can repay debt and the total debt can still go up if you borrow even more.

As has been stated above, it isn’t always that the money man is giving his own money, rather guaranteeing the money, as Moores did for all of those years. We have neither money man nor guarantor but far better our system than selling our soul to become a billionaire's plaything or an American Franchise.

I’d rather us be a sustainable self-contained club if possible with a large financial input from the fans and partial but increasing fan ownership. Not talk, talk, talk but money from pockets.

Here’s where BK does get to be a problem, he isn’t interested in anybody else owning EFC and that is absolutely his decision to make.

I’m not certain but I think the cheques are / were made out to Goodison Park Stadium, which means that the season ticket money is used to pay off one of the loans (the 25-year one) I believe. Which perhaps explains why the Early Bird wakes up earlier each season and possibly any potential shortfall in Season Ticket sales has to be made up by the club and thus upset their budgeting strategy.

As I say, I could be very wrong but it is my understanding of the situation. I’m sure somebody more knowledgeable will set me straight if I have given the wrong information.

I’m not an accountant but in the published accounts I read was the following statement which matched a quote I posted from Elstone on another thread. This was the £17M reduction that I mentioned above.

"The Club’s net debt position reduced significantly from £45.3m to £28.1m in 2014 despite the continued investment in the playing squad. The net debt of the Club has averaged £44m over the last 5 years and is considered to be well managed with the Club benefitting from the continued support of long-standing lenders."

I can only go on what is published in the media.

My own feeling is that by October, unless there is a massive turnaround in how we played last year and as continued unchanged in the Asia Cup we could be showing stress. What I'd expect BK to do is to stand by RM for far longer than the fans would wish because that's how he is. Some would say it is a strength.

"I can only go on what is published in the media."

That is exactly where you are going wrong.

Net debt refers to the total debt of a company minus cash on hand. Net debt is a measure of the ability of a company to repay its debts when due. Therefore, it is helpful to the analysts and investors in getting a better feel for whether a company is over or under leveraged, i.e. the capability of a company to afford its debts.

That is, from 2013 to 2014, EFC’s net debt reduced, that is it's ability to repay its debts improved and that is the key measure. According to what I read, the actual debt is not necessarily as important. Net debt looks to be a good measure of the club's performance year on year and it is improving.

The accounts are audited so are you saying that there’s a conspiracy between club and auditors to hide a much darker position than the accounts show?

Like most, I'm really more interested in how our midfield is going to look next week but then, by the same criteria, I start to fret that if Roberto does make a couple of signings, the squad will actually be all the weaker!

Do they supply accountancy primers from ToffeeWeb, or even a string of worry beads in the last resort!

I may be wrong but I think you will find the Fellaini money came in just before the end of the accounting period and therefore had to be reflected in the numbers.

Perhaps someone with more knowledge can advise on that.

Bill, -- that could be correct in certain circumstances for example -- I owe the bank £100 and I have a car worth £100. But if I sell my car for say £50 (ie, for less than what it’s worth) to partially repay the bank, my debt will be reduced but I will no longer have that asset. So my finances have NOT moved in the right direction.

Simple but true.

Bill #177, no inferring necessary, the accounts clearly state that borrowing increased.

Martin, total debt is important, especially if it is continuing to increase. Considering we recieved £20mn (?) increase in telly money over the last few how did our total debt increase?

It will be even clearer that something is wrong when the newest increase of £30mn comes along and our debt continues to rise.

If we've received additional income since the 2014 accounts that I've read then this should be reflected in reduced net debt if borrowing and outgoings haven't gone up. It seems to me that in reality we're still spending far more than our earning capacity will allow. A couple of posts on the thread you link to above show that we have spent big time since Martinez came.

I can't claim to have detailed knowledge of what is coming into the club as income, what we spend servicing loans, what we are spending on transfers and wages or even what we spend on the much maligned "other costs". I believe though what I see in the audited accounts and the reason is because I don't have the knowledge or expertise to prove that they are wrong. If the financial situation is deteriorating then I'd expect this to be reflected in the 2015 accounts. Would this be reasonable?

The accounts reflect the true position the Club is in at the time they were made and they show that debt and borrowings are increased. Don't be fooled by the spin of (nett) debt reduction and "record profits".

With regards to the question about the season ticket money, this sounds like something I've come across in my work. Basically under the terms of the loan, all income will be paid into a company set up for this purpose. The banks will then take the amount due to be paid to them for the year/period and then pass on the balance of funds to the club.

Isn't that what I said?

My point is, the values of the players is miles higher than in the Accounts, due to Football's odd idiosyncrasies, and therefore the club is worth more than the Accounts would depict.

Additionally, though debt maybe going up, servicing it is sustainable, based on the Income and Expenditure figures we have, although it looks to me that this is based entirely on the increased Income from TV. The rest of the business seems to make no money and as the revenue has been largely outsourced for moderate but secured profits as the Company does not believe it can run that aspect at a better return.

They have gone from the main retail Banks to elsewhere, to a lender who takes on poorer risks and that is reflected in the rates offered. Usually with penalty terms for early repayment.

Bit pay day loanish... you go to the Bank, they knock you back and a mate tells you to borrow off such a body company, where he is, just coincidentally, a Director. You need the money and now, so you have to agree to the terms on offer.

Ian, as the debt increases so do the interest payments. The problem is though the misconception that debt is being repaid when it’s not. Regarding the Vibrac loan, why do we still need it when we receive an additional £30M a year since we first took it out? It should have been repaid instead of rolling it over every year.

I know that there are a group of people here who desperately believe that there is wrong doing at the club and financial skulduggery is draining money from the club to it’s great disadvantage relative to other clubs when this is unsubstantiated. It’s a bit like those who want the team to lose so that they can say I told you so.

The reality from the accounts is that we’re a club that has been desperately in the shit and that is still so but is now being run fairly well with the situation slowly becoming more sustainable. Remember that they overspend and borrow to try to achieve the often shrill and unrealistic demands of some of its fans for success whatever success may be in this era where winning key trophies is limited to 4 sides.

Net profit is a simple concept, other costs are a simple concept, they don’t necessarily mean any foul play. It may be that this board is doing a good job in the circumstances and don’t forget that it is also running the club in its own interest and that is their prerogative.

Sad.

The TV revenues received have totalled £554.64m but even those vast sums haven't been enough to satisfy the wage bill which stands at £625m for the period in question.

Total turnover less the TV revenue stands at £379m of which £269m was earned via match related income. The circa £109m earned by the club and not spent on wages must have largely been used to pay for the mundane items required to run the club from day to day and other player payments e.t.c. while probably almost half (£48m) of it was used to service the interest on the loans.

The net debt position was £29.61m at the end of the 2000-01 season and reached a peak of £46m in 2011 after many fluctuations in the interim period and as of the last accounts for 2014 stands at £28m.

Perhaps, the next tranche of TV money will help the club to continue it's path to recovery, but those wishing to see major multi-million pound players arrive at Goodison without their favourites departing, may have to wait just a little longer.

I often hear about this "acceptance of mediocrity", it’s an illusion and an insult to the vast majority of Evertonians who understand the position that the club is in. Our success will be judged by how we do relative to the rest outside of the top 5 or 6, how we do compared with our potential and how we improve season on season.

Nobody is happy with the position that the club is in now but why should our position be any different given our location and income and why should we irrationally expect EFC to be a top club now just because we were once? It is nothing to do with lack of ambition, it is called acceptance of reality.

Good post, Patrick.

Total Turnover (936m) Less wages (£625m) equals £311m which equates to circa £20m per year -- £7m (approx) loan interest leaves circa £13m per year to run the club.

Total player trading has returned a small profit of circa £2m for that period notwithstanding agents fee, undisclosed fees etc.
.

However there have been plenty of alternatives proposed, by KEIOC and BU for example, but the Club does not want to listen to them. Personally I would bring in some management experts to look at growing the poor commercial side of the business but it’s apparent the board are happy to rely on Mr Murdoch and his peers to keep the Club ticking over.

Acceptance of mediocrity in the name of reality is just a cop out, you accept there is a problem but are not bothered to do anything about it, worse still you criticise those who point out the emperor has no clothes.