Nil Satis Nisi Optimum, the governance and cultural changes required for it to become a reality at Everton

Once again, another interesting thought-provoking article.

If we accept what you say is correct, why do you think Moshiri, who is far from a stupid man, does not initiate change at boardroom level? He has been here long enough now to see what has been, and is going on.

In his life, he must have experience of, or seen, other businesses excel and the format required to see the reasons why.

I appreciate a football club is slightly different from a commercial business but why continue with a model showing little sign of improvement?

TBF - for many a year I have felt we are just not professional enough and hard nosed enough. We are a medium sized business with the profile of a major multinational. Perhaps some on the board who could (have) run a multinational but I think the levels below them would struggle. And the levels above are not prepared to take the hard decisions of shape up or ship out.

The outcome has been a series of poor decisions and hence poor outcomes. For example, at no point during the chaos of 2017 did it appear that anyone at Board level questioned the thinking behind the expenditure of massive sums of money on recruitment. Money was thrown down the drain for average players with no clear vision of how they would fit into a team pattern or style of play.

It would appear that, as a club, we repeatedly roll the dice hoping the next managerial appointment will succeed without ensuring the building blocks for success are in place.

"Let's remember that the club exists to generate the resources to build the best possible football team, coach and maintain the team, and to provide the facilities in which fans can watch their team play and ultimately win trophies."

Does it really? - or is it now just a handy tool to add value to, via a new stadium build and eventual sell-off to the 'Next Fool'...(Google 'The Greater Fool Theory')???

Ownership & Board; what we have is 'An Organ Grinder' 78% shareholding absentee owner – who leaves 4 paid staff (called in the trade 'Monkeys') to supervise (and I use the term loosely) other paid staff.

NSNO; A worthy target to aspire to, but not seen, except briefly in the mid-80s, since the day Alan Ball was sold.

"Over the last 5 years we have grown used to being funded by Moshiri's generosity."

Again, really? IF... and heaven forbid it should ever happen and Mr Moshiri were to fall under the proverbial bus or, even worse, Bramley-Moore Dock becomes a total non-starter, all that 'generosity' will become 'debt'.
Well, I would wager such 'generosity' would then be found in the debit side of Everton's books and not as a liability on the estate of our ex-owner.

Accountants, especially billionaire Accountants don't get to be billionaires without keeping the dreaded D-word well away from them.

You're right about one thing though... "The status quo will not achieve NSNO at our club…"

Moshiri must rue the day he let Bill talk him into all this. It seemed at the time it was a win-win for everybody. Bill got his investment (and a nice return on his investment); we got a new ground; and Moshiri would make profit in the eventual sell-on.

That said, down the line, he seems to have been poorly advised and made some (in hindsight, I know) 'it seemed like a good idea at the time' expensive decisions.

The latest may yet be Ancelotti... but let's give that the benefit of the doubt for another year.

As always with The Ev – more questions than answers!

#3 I agree John, it is a form of rolling dice, all the chips on the next manager, there's appears to be no effective long term planning even with the appointment of Marcel Brands

#4 Derek - from a shareholder perspective, yes the club is there to generate capital appreciation, of course I understand that entirely, but beyond that its purpose is surely football and challenging to win trophies?
Re Moshiri's generosity, yes of course, he or his estate could look to recover his funds at sometime in the future - I assume that will be done at the point he decides to dispose of the club to another purchaser rather than liquidate the assets (players) to repay himself - that would be wholly counter-productive.

Agree totally with your last line (apart from the use of Ev :) )

As always your posts are always very interesting and always well researched, and thought provoking. I think the whole package of Farhad taking a majority shareholding in Everton was sold to him by BK painting a picture of a club who had a relatively large and loyal fan base, and a club that had regularly finished in the top half of the table on limited funds. Where if we had someone to invest in the club as well as build a new stadium then we could again take our seat at the very top of the table.

Moshiri has only recently said that he is having to spend a lot more of his time looking after club business than was originally envisaged. What involvement his boss Alisher Usmanov has in the club is shrouded in mystery. Some even believe that Moshiri is only a front man and that its Usmanov who is pulling the strings. The one thing we know is both men are successful business men who know how to set up successful companies. But as we know football isn't like any other business, as Alan Sugar commented his business head went out the window when he became Chairman of Spurs.

I don't know what the answer is to our problem but I know changing managers every 2 years is certainly not the way to make this club successful again

It may be that the SPA or similar that is probably in place has a time limit on Bill's tenure as Chairman. It would be unwise for it to be open ended, and Moshiri would be entirely familiar with such arrangements.

Perhaps a trigger for his leaving might be getting planning permission or some such milestone, when the value of the club would be increased, and give Bill a nice little bonus on his remaining shareholding.

Alternatively He just wants to keep Bill around as you suggest.

We are just incredibly out of date/touch - - with little real "nous" anywhere in The Club.

I am 71 and still looking for a "fight"(metaphorically) in the Arts World which is still riddled/diddled/muddled/fuddled in Class.
Up The Blues.

Since the business is not an owner manager model, I would have thought Moshiri is de facto acting as a non Exec director, albeit not in the traditional capacity of sitting on the board, not least because he has a placeman there in Ryazantsev.

Perhaps the core issue here is that Moshiri himself needs to be better advised and while a competent Chairman might be able to fulfil that role, I don't believe our current one is right for it. As for the CEO role, is it truly the case that Ryazantsev and Brands report into Barrett Baxendale? In theory they should but I struggle to see that. In which case, who do they report to?

Personally, I'd forget about non execs per se if I were Moshiri, other than a non exec Chairman who acts as my counsel, and find myself a CEO who properly runs the show and is accountable for the whole business. Boards are for strategy setting and barely need to happen even quarterly, maybe half yearly and should be Moshiri, his Chairman and CEO. The CEO and his team have management board meetings monthly or more often and I would say that management board, as currently structured, would need to add at least one to the existing 3. Probably split Finance/Admin and Commercial which are very different skillsets. As and when we get started properly on the stadium, it might need one more with that particular skillset.

In all by years of involvement with sports teams it was a given that as well as good management on the pitch, good management off the pitch was necessary to achieve success. A winning Club has a winning Chairman as well as a winning Manager.

Not in a thousand years will Everton win anything with Kenwright as Chairman. The best Ancelotti can achieve is a better League position and a longer Cup run. It will a real lucky break to win the Carco or FA Cup. It might be even better not to win these Cups with Kenwright as Chairman, if consistent success is the objective, such would be the affect of his prolonged tenure.

Great article that shows the true drag on a successful Everton.

In all by years of involvement with sports teams it was a given that as well as good management on the pitch, good management off the pitch was necessary to achieve success. A winning Club has a winning Chairman as well as a winning Manager.

Not in a thousand years will Everton win anything with Kenwright as Chairman. The best Ancelotti can achieve is a better League position and a longer Cup run. It will a real lucky break to win the Carco or FA Cup. It might be even better not to win these Cups with Kenwright as Chairman, if consistent success is the objective, such would be the affect of his prolonged tenure.

Great article that shows the true drag on a successful Everton.

I know some will respond that we’ve spent a lot, and they would be correct. But we haven’t spent anywhere near and consistently as the best clubs. Until we do, the situation is unlikely to change, even if we manage to occasionally finish higher up the table or win a cup.

I think a big issue has been that Moshiri and Kenwright have not given Brands full autonomy on the footballing side and they have meddled in transfers and the appointment of managers. We don't really know if he has the capability to lead on a committed strategy as Director of Football but his extensive prior experience suggests he can.

Most of the larger clubs have non-executive directors, people who have achieved success in other fields. Manchester United have 3, Tottenham have 1 etc.

Re a non-exec with oversight on footballing mattes, someone like David Beckham, Gerard Pique or Oliver Kahn – people who know the game inside out and have gone on to establish successful businesses for themselves. They're just examples.

I'm a bit surprised that the power of the Chairman of the Board is a bit down played. Leaving aside the personalities, he/she runs the Board, can appoint or get rid of Directors, can only be removed by the Shareholders. It is a position that carries a great deal of power in an organisation.

Where a Chairman is also a Shareholder, that can be a further issue and, unless transparent, can lead to conflicts of interest.

If a Chairman is resistant to change, or favours a particular direction, the chances are that is the way a business can be steered.

A continuance of that situation will see Carlo's job safe, whether or not he wins trophies or a place in Europe prior to the move to Docklands.

Ex-Director Keith Harris hinted at these conditions being a barrier to a takeover, prior to Moshiri coming on the scene. Moshiri has agreed to these conditions, which would have been formalised in a Shareholders Agreement.

This agreement could set out the Corporate structure of Everton and the rights of Bill Kenwright regarding staff recruitment, transfer policy, staff promotion, security of tenure as Chairman, and Board size. If so, this agreement would be a barrier to any of the reforms proposed by Paul in this article.

Bill and his Luvies are here to stay until Bill decides to sell his shares, which he will be in no rush to do as they are likely to increase in value with proposed developments or when Bill drops off his perch.

Moshiri's involvement could be as a party in a long-term property investment, with Usmanov in the wings, as their share values have increased and will increase.

Both Bill and Moshiri are quids in anyway at this stage.

Too right – negativity from top to bottom, what makes anyone in Authority want to watch players playing just outside their own area, giving the ball away, and conceding a goal???

When Allardyce came, he said the first ball has got to be forward. He didn't say that, then the players have to turn round and pass back all the time – which is the stock-in-trade of this team.

Whatever the Agreement is called, it covers the requirements of both parties to the Sale and Purchase of the shares.

Moshiri will also have had a very big say in how this was structured, and as the man with the big bucks, that Bill clearly wanted a piece of, he will have structured in his own requirements. It is usually a huge document with all sort of cut-offs, sanctions, penalties – and is legally binding.

I'd be astounded if there was no time limit on Bill's tenure, or some sort of milestone triggering his departure. But you never know.

He might think Bill's a genius, or did at the time at least.

As I said above, for the first 3 years, I held the view that such an agreement was in place. When Moshiri made his most recent share purchases, I felt confident that the agreement period had probably lapsed but that Moshiri was content to leave Bill in situ (for reasons I still can not fathom).

What is absolutely true, though, is that we will not see governance improvement nor more importantly cultural change within the club whilst the board remains as it is and, in particular, the Chairman and CEO remain at the club.

Does Moshiri have the desire to make the changes that, with the right replacements, will allow the club to move forwards?

From memory (not a good thing), the timing of the further share transfers were pre-agreed, and I think I remember seeing that the documents had already been set up, at the time of the initial sale. It may even have been on here.

All except the last tranche, of course. Which is why I'm thinking the final tranche is linked to a milestone, which will give Bill a nice little terminal bonus, rather than a specific date.

My thought was the granting of planning permission, when the share price would be expected to increase. That would have been a requirement of Bill's in the Agreement.

Again from memory, Liverpool's value increased a lot once they had planning permission for Stanley Park, and in many ways was the trigger of the sale of the club to the Texans.

But of course it's conjecture. And of course the original planned date has already slipped.

Sorry, Paul, I missed your reference in the article to the possibility of a Shareholders Agreement. Of course you are both right regarding a time limit on the Shareholders Agreement. This would normally be 5 years, just like the probable Brexit Fishing agreement. I can't see Bill going without a bonus, so the buyout date could be by another formula, as Chris says.

A lot depends, as you both say, on Moshiri's objectives when buying the Club and why he accepted the terms Bill wanted, when no-one else would. There was also Usmanov in the background and a front seat on a lucrative Docklands development, with the Peel Group's dependence on their anchor tenant.

I think Ancelotti is here to stay the length of his contract and maybe beyond. Moshiri will see that area of the Club as having been sorted. He has enough to contend with, and off-the-field development and maybe with business away from Everton, without chasing dreams with the next up-and-coming manager. Kenwright may even suit now, but I can't see Bill or our Chief Executive Officer being up to running the business at the next level of development. But it's all up to Moshiri at the end of the day.

Moshiri and his mate are not orthodox in their methods, for whatever reason. I have always thought there was a element of wariness of regulatory authorities in Bill as Chairman and frontman.

It set me thinking about what is the nature of Everton Football Club in the context of the modern game. In so doing, I was reminded for one reason or another about an observation by Harry Redknapp. On a visit to Goodison Park with his Tottenham side, he remarked in his post-match interview that he loved bringing his team to this ground because it still enjoyed the atmosphere of a proper sports club.

His view was expressed at the time, when Manchester United had fallen into the clutches of the Glazer family. Tottenham themselves were listed on the London stock exchange, at the time, but were delisted in 2012 by Daniel Levy.

The Glazers' approach to running Man Utd was sustained in the first instance by Alex Ferguson. The torrent of trophies enriched the already established global recognition of the club. Since his departure, the need to sustain the club at the front and centre of world football has become a burden for successive managers. It's as though the ethos of, what is essentially a club-based game, becomes drowned in the corporate drive for riches as the primary imperative.

So what do I take from all this? Well, careful what you wish for. I am not for one moment suggesting that, as a club, we do not strive to win things and sit on our hands, being content to enshrine to a greater degree than others the spirit of a sports club. Nor would I for one moment remain unmoved, Paul, by your shrewd observations about the governance of the club and how it could change for the better.

What I worry about is that, for many, such changes are needed in order to get up there with the other rich kids, as it were. If, in the short term, they have their way and a European closed shop is set up, the game for me would be the poorer for it. I would much rather witness games played in a league where all those competing have a chance of winning or falling short by reason of poor coaching, team selection etc.

Maintaining a Sports Club ethos, better managed and striving to win seems to me to be a laudable direction of travel. Others may disagree!

On reflection... Nah, he might sell all his shares, but it'll be feet first for Bill.

Thanks for your reply and the addition of such figures to the board would undoubtedly improve things. This has been discussed before but do you think the issue is that Moshiri seems to be more of a sensation seeker when it comes to investing in football?

Other clubs may be run in a better fashion because they are run to make a profit or to be self-sustaining. Moshiri seems happy to splurge cash around in place of a strategy.