» Read the full article at Daily Star
Reader Comments (44)
Note: the following content is not moderated or vetted by the site owners at the time of submission. Comments are the responsibility of the poster. Disclaimer
1 Posted 18/08/2015 at 12:34:19
And not just for the preceding 12 months, but the last 16 years.
3 Posted 18/08/2015 at 18:18:16
I do agree, mistakes have been made and change is required; however, the change must be the correct one to move the club forward. Surely we don't want a carbon copy of Leeds, Portsmouth etc.
At this point in time, if the current improvement on the pitch continues and the younger players continue to get their chance to improve, the future looks brighter than one could imagine after last seasons poor performance.
The club should however should be more transparent and inform the fans of there future plans to move the club forward off the pitch.
4 Posted 18/08/2015 at 21:12:33
No it isn't misinformation and it doesn't need independent professional analysis it just needs a more realistic view by some of our more reactionary fans.
Of course everybody has the right to be critical but please show some understanding. Evertonians aren't pot hunters and surely don't believe that our history (and pretty old history now) somehow dictates that we should be successful forever.
A great article which should be read by all Evertonians.
5 Posted 18/08/2015 at 21:19:56
So the question remains 'where's the money being spent'. The most eye-catching ratio increase is of course that of th 'other operating costs' to total costs. No reference to that one in the Daily Star article though......
6 Posted 18/08/2015 at 21:32:59
7 Posted 18/08/2015 at 21:35:57
8 Posted 18/08/2015 at 21:37:46
No offence by the way but the board is innocent until proven guilty. We must start from that position.
9 Posted 18/08/2015 at 21:43:58
10 Posted 18/08/2015 at 21:56:06
11 Posted 18/08/2015 at 21:57:52
Does anyone know if we still take a loan to cover the cash flow for the year?
12 Posted 18/08/2015 at 21:59:51
They can keep applauding our current custodians if that scenario comes to pass. I'll be one of those snarling and growling at the collective failure of the board and the fans to recognise and address the deep-rooted issues which are largely of our own making.
I think it was Tommy Docherty who said of Villa that 50k would turn up to watch 11 claret and blue shirts... If Everton carry on for the next 10 years as they have for the last decade off the pitch, we may be lucky if the club can afford the shirts.
Remember what David Moyes said in his time at Manchester United: "I know how they work at Everton" -- so do some Evertonians, if not most of them, but it doesn't seem to matter, which makes me wonder why the Live Forum is so full of people who fume and get overly perplexed when the team aren't performing for them on the pitch.
Obviously what goes on in the boardroom has no bearing on what goes on on the pitch. I beg to differ, ambitions and targets are set at boardroom level and the players are charged with trying to match those ambitions. We've sold the family silver to keep a team on the pitch, but we have little chance of putting silverware in the trophy cabinet. I assume we still have a trophy cabinet... or has that been sold to put a team out on the park as well? Never mind, we can always rent one when the time comes.
13 Posted 18/08/2015 at 22:03:27
14 Posted 18/08/2015 at 22:04:31
15 Posted 18/08/2015 at 22:06:20
16 Posted 18/08/2015 at 22:22:42
A basic skimming over of events in a glorified comic (bit like the Beano, but with even less wit and double tit) by a bloke whose defence is so half-hearted, he himself admits Kenwright's claims of being a skilled salesman are "laughable".
He states that the only criticism that could possibly be made to stick is the continual failure to bring in new investment or to find a buyer, like it's a little matter of no import and barely worth bringing up. Err... isn't that primarily what the protestors are complaining about?
Isn't the fruitless 24/7 search that our beloved chairman has (supposedly) spent every waking hour conducting, that has seen him leave no stone unturned, no bedsit doorbell un-ding-dong-ed, no expense spared in the production of cutting edge buyer bait... such as a fucking glossy brochure; isn't that the very reason why these people are asking for an independent body to be brought in and tasked with the sole objective of seeking out a buyer?
The whole half-arsed, thrown-together nature of the piece is pretty much summed up by the Count from Sesame Street School of Maths that maintains a 㿈m profit was 'obviously' and coincidentally eaten up by the 㿈m purchase of Lukaku. Drip... drip... drip... drip.... Clue: that's not a fucking tap... err, Von Count...you creepy, three fingered, felt-covered, can't be arsed with the facts, counting fanny.
17 Posted 18/08/2015 at 22:50:11
Then as I passed Stanley Park, peeping through the treeline was a monsterous piece of modern steelwork. It basically summed up our two paths without the need for these words.
But worse than that, are 'articles' such as the one in the comic above and fans telling me everything is OK.
Tranmere Rovers was a suitable club for our chairman -- he is way, way out of his depth here.
18 Posted 18/08/2015 at 23:02:46
Such a poor analysis, the author claims the money has gone back into the players based entirely on the TV figures. Is the TV money our only source of revenue then? What on earth are the commercial department doing and what about the money in league positions earned by the sweat of the players? High positions lest we forget.
I am pretty sure it is the general ineptitude that seems to permeate the upper echelons of the club that is behind the current unrest. Pretty sure the laughably low sponsorship and commercial kit deals have been cited as evidence of this. Perhaps the author thinks we ought to depend on the TV money and everyone else can just stick their proverbial digits in an inappropriate orifice.
19 Posted 18/08/2015 at 23:26:42
What is a relatively safe bet is that in the absence of a related party transaction note to the statutory accounts, no management fees can have been paid to any offshore entity with any degree of control by either the directors or major shareholders or their associates.
20 Posted 18/08/2015 at 23:30:28
21 Posted 18/08/2015 at 23:35:29
"Jay, do you base your life around unsubstantiated rumours?"
The attention is in the details. #8 Jay Woods with an 's' and I, Jay Wood, no 's', are not one and the same.
Indeed, our opinions and the manner we offer them are poles apart.
As for the Daily Star article that so excites you - The Daily friggin' STAR???!!! That bastion and leading light of investigative journalism???
Be at ease Martin. The writer comes nowhere near to matching your own obsequiousness and genuflecting towards the EFC board. Your crown is safe from would-be usurpers.
22 Posted 18/08/2015 at 23:40:40
Bunch of fucking amateurs.
23 Posted 18/08/2015 at 23:59:58
Not even the merest hint of any suspicion of how this article has suddenly appeared in the National press. Mind you I should be a bit more accurate when addressing the Star, as a "newspaper" which it patently isn't.
SO we're "expecting the impossible" No. Not the impossible. Unless of course "The impossible fits a description of anything like plan to:
a) Renovate or re develop the ground.
b) improve the income the club receives from commercial partners.
c) I was going to say a plan for building a new ground.
Now that is expecting the impossible!
24 Posted 19/08/2015 at 00:50:14
Get well soon Dear Leader. Then please please let go of the train set and give it to someone who knows how to run a business as well as a football club.
25 Posted 19/08/2015 at 07:10:09
26 Posted 19/08/2015 at 07:31:03
Talk about a dialogue of the deaf.
27 Posted 19/08/2015 at 07:41:06
For example Elstone recently came out and said GP could only be redeveloped to a 34,000 capacity but in the Kings Dock prospectus the CLUB presented alternatives for 45,000 and 55,000 capacity.
And what about GP being about to fail it's safety certificate? The Fortress Sports Fund lies? And of course the Desperation Kirkby fiasco in which the public inquiry conclusion was the Club were lying.
Then there's the rumours of an imminent takeover every time protests appear. What happened to those interested parties that suddenly appeared last week when the protest was announced?
28 Posted 19/08/2015 at 07:53:14
Hang on, that's exactly what the article says we ARE
Watching your team go 20 years without silverware hurts. It's why Everton fans clubbed together to fly a plane over St Mary's last weekend calling for the board to resign.
For some fans, finishing fifth or sixth or seventh isn't good enough. They want trophies.
29 Posted 19/08/2015 at 07:55:30
30 Posted 19/08/2015 at 08:01:12
Where's the TV money? It's gone back into the club, lads.
Everton made a small profit before tax in that period of 㿈m.ÃÂ
Does anyone else have a problem with this maths? £120m income minus £115m expenditure equals £5m. So where did the £28m profit come from??
He fails to mention that £28M was the money made on player trading, ie, that we sold more than we bought, as we do every season.
31 Posted 19/08/2015 at 08:15:48
If there is one big criticism of Kenwright, it is his abject failure to bring serious investment into the club. And his claim that there is no better salesman for the club does look laughable.
NOW he looks like he might be getting to the crux of the matter, but does he follow up on it? No, he deflects with the usual bullshit about potential buyers going public and fails to mention BK's oft-quoted meetings with potential buyers.
32 Posted 19/08/2015 at 08:23:44
And if the cost of a new stadium is driving potential buyers away, why not renovate Goodison and increase capacity and income and make the Club a more attractive proposition?
33 Posted 19/08/2015 at 08:33:58
Typical of your usual disdainful and deflecting response, Martin. Not a word about what was written. Just a verbal impression of a fat American sort on Jerry Springer giving a 'talk to the hand' gesture. None of the comments mention the actual content of the..ahem...article?
Talk about see no evil, hear no evil.
Gene Wilder: How's my hair look?
Richard Pryor: It looks like it belongs on the head of an escapee from a mental hospital who was banged up for mopery.
Gene Wilder: Looks great doesn't it. No wonder I get all the chicks in our movies.
Richard Pryor: What about me? You can't tell I'm high can you?
Gene wilder: YES. Your tash looks like it's made up of fucking forty percent self-raising flour.
Richard Pryor: Yeah, I'm so skilled at hiding it. Not even Superman's gonna know I'm smashed off my tits.
34 Posted 19/08/2015 at 08:34:40
But of course no mention of that in his comparison.
Yes Everton won a trophy under that regime. Big deal. They almost went under as well. Hell, Johnson even had to sell Duncan Ferguson behind his manager's back.
Hang on, didn't he say previously that the fans were only interested in trophies? If so then he should recognise that yes it IS a big deal to those fans. Again in his efforts to portray BK as a saint in comparison to Johnson he overlooks the fact that we almost went under with BK at the helm, with only the sale if Rooney bailing us out, and later Arteta being sold to appease the bank.
35 Posted 19/08/2015 at 08:41:35
Like many fans he believes the Club soundbites about reduced debt when it has in fact gone up and the Club having increased the borrowing from our friends in BVI by 66%, DESPITE receiving an additional 㿊M in revenues.
He's right though that the finances need to be stabilised, improved and expanded but as everyone knows, the club doesn't currently have a chairman or a board in a position to do those things.
36 Posted 19/08/2015 at 08:45:44
Sorry about it being so disjointed guys but I'm doing this on a 'phone.
37 Posted 19/08/2015 at 08:52:23
Assigning the ongoing malaise in the face of a surge in club turnover to a coincidental rise in operating costs seems wilfully naive / calculated to cover up the board's malfeasance (delete as appropriate), and is far less credible than the unsubstantiated rumours that I personally suspect feature, at the very least, a kernel of truth.
38 Posted 19/08/2015 at 09:15:02
I would say that the only ones putting their heads in the sand are those who are content to see Everton keep on falling further and further behind at least six clubs, almost certainly more.
If you look at our ground, great memories, fantastic history, firsts galore. Yet it holds 39,000 odd, with god knows how many obstructed views. That was alright when we could stand up and move around, even to the other end of the ground at one time.
The Bullens Road stand (where I sit) is reminiscent of a long, narrow, wooden shed.
I don't mind the lack of room in the seats, queuing for yonks to nip to the toilet, I don't even bother getting a cuppa.
Full of history, yes. But "The Grand Old Lady?" more like a Decrepit Ould Biddy.
Sooner or later (sooner rather than later) this club has to either modernise the stadium, or move.
Some believe Kenwright is a grand all-round good egg, who single-handedly, mightily, struggles to keep us hanging onto the coat tails of the rest of the big grounds. That he is a Blue, he is one of us and better with him than some Sheikh or Russian gangster.
Well, if anyone believes that this man has been looking 24/7 for 16 years, for someone to buy/invest in this club, that is their right.
I would say that, during this time, after two failed ground moves and a third not likely to get further than dreams, there is only one alternative.
Kenwright put forward a strong case for staying and redeveloping GP; he put forward two plans showing the development of a 45,000 or 55,000 seater stadium at one stage.
Yet, when it suited the Board during that daft saga of Kirkby, the word came out from the club that the ground wouldn't pass a safety certificate and we had to move!
If that is the case, we are up shit creek without a paddle. I guess though, that the ground is capable of being re developed but I don't think that is what Kenwright intended. I think he wanted someone (The City or Tesco) to build him a stadium and he stayed as Chairman.
I think now, we have no alternative but to stay where we are and improve Goodison bit by bit. The trouble is, I don't see this board willing to carry out that necessary development.
So, I think the fans who are calling for Kenwright to go are not putting their heads in the sand. They are deeply concerned about the future of this club under the present incumbents.
39 Posted 19/08/2015 at 11:11:18
"Big Dave catches sight of him for an instant and laughs. He's about to lift the FA Cup after beating Manchester United. There are few better feelings, for Everton player or supporter. Neither dreamed that day it would be the last time (to date) the club would lift a trophy."
Er....it wasn't the last time they would lift a trophy. Within the short space of a few months they lifted another, the Community Shield after beating Blackburn Rovers, thanks to one Vinny Samways. STOP WRITING VINNY OUT OF HISTORY!
40 Posted 19/08/2015 at 12:12:28
You are the one with his head in the sand, Martin.
41 Posted 19/08/2015 at 14:17:44
Tony@28, no business runs on success being dictated by the tiny chance of an improbable event happening. That's why fans don't run football clubs; they are governed by emotion and irrational expectation.
Btw, I don't give the board unconditional blessing but on the same basis I can't slag them neither as there isn't a shred of evidence to show that they are doing any worse than a reasonable board should be doing given our circumstances or that changing them has any chance of improving our lot.
I know very little about how the club is run and how past events have unfolded in reality. In that respect I'm the same as 99.99% + of the fan base. Remember that 5 myths don't equal one fact and that no matter how many times myths are repeated they are still myths.
My money says that the board is going nowhere except on it's own terms and that if the team start winning again the protests will disappear immediately-again. This is an issue of the club not meeting some fan's expectations. The issue should be about the club meeting its potential which it unequivocally does for me.
42 Posted 19/08/2015 at 14:44:55
Then you are not reading the Club accounts, Martin, or just being disingenuous in your argument. Fellaini was sold in September 2013 so of course is included in the accounts which closed May 2014.
"Reducing net debt is effectively the same as reducing debt." This is where you again show your ignorance about the difference between debt and net debt despite it being explained to you many times. Stop cutting and pasting what you have read on Wiki and truly understand the difference.
Our debt increased by 19%, our net debt fell because more people owe us money, we are in no better position to pay off debt than before. Also we had cash in the bank which affects the net debt figure. I bet this money is not in the bank now considering it was prior to the Lukaku purchase.
43 Posted 19/08/2015 at 16:31:55
Ignorance is bliss...until you're left watching League 1 football in a falling down stadium
47 Posted 19/08/2015 at 08:03:23
49 Posted 20/08/2015 at 09:29:34
"Do you think I've been plagiarised? ..."
That's one way of putting it.
Add Your Comments
In order to post a comment, you need to be logged in as a registered user of the site.
Or Sign up as a ToffeeWeb Member — it's free, takes just a few minutes and will allow you to post your comments on articles and Talking Points submissions across the site.