Bill Kenwright

[MrGrumpy]

We're masters of it.

I estimate we "won" three transfer windows between 2017 and 2019. Not many matches, though. And no cups. Strange, that.

Winning the transfer windows its a Bing… I mean Everton thing

 

[FTY]

What games this from?

 

[Tom Hughes]

Is it an inferior location? Personally I think there is a lot more to work with down that side of the docks.

I mean yeah it would look nice next to town etc but it would be horrific to get in and out of. We would be one of many things at Kings Dock, at BMD we will basically rule the area. Will be interesting to see how the area builds up.

The Kings Dock is superior on a few levels.

Never been a priority of mine, but if it's the post card waterfront aspect you're chasing, the city centre is a much more attractive and higher profile backdrop than next to a sewage plant in vauxhall.

Logistically it also wipes the floor with BMD, with all transport hubs and services on its doorstep. This offers single mode public transport access for fans in all parts of the city region.

The city centre comfortably copes with moving multiples of the stadium's proposed capacity every rush hr, as it is the focal point of the whole public transport and road network. It also has the greatest concentration of amenities to help absorb that process and accommodate any rush. BMD is right at the edge of that comfortable walking envelope and will need road closures and multiple additional services to support it. BMD's accessibility will hopefully improve on the back of the whole Liverpool waters scheme.... but it's by no means a certainty and in anycase could never match that of the actual city centre.

 

[The binman chronicles]

Your talking a lot of sense, Kings Dock might of benefited us, we will never know, but ask Middlesbrough, Sunderland, Wigan, Derby, Reading, Bolton, and possibly a few more I've forgot, if moving to a new ground bought them new levels of success and progress.
It might have done for us, but it certainly didn't damage us not going there.

I'm sorry mate but that last statement is like standing outside on a sunny day and arguing with a hundred people that the sky is black.

There are distinct tangibles to how that hurt us, the first is we would have had a stadium we would have paid off many years ago for starters instead of paying back 500 million starting from now. Increased revenue from the KD at a point when matchday income was a lot more important than it is now might have given us the tools to compete right at the sharp end during that following period where we were classed as best of the rest. Remember we didn't have a pot to pee in for ages due to being stuck at Goodison and having to take unfavourable loans and overdrafts creating a cycle of less and less money being available. KD could have done the opposite. We also would have had the second fully covered stadium in the country, that would have been massive on a publicity point alone, to be AHEAD of the curve once again like our motto suggests. Old Trafford and alike weren't that big at that time.

The part that is more speculative but nevertheless true is that buyers would have seen us as a much more desirable place to invest or buy out. We can't say for sure that Bill would have eventually sold to City's owners especially if we were up there competing for trophies, but you would think they would have been even more keen to buy us and the fact the stadium would have put our value at hundreds of millions instead of the tens, Kenwright might have thought I'll take it and ride off into the sunset with more capital for his day job.

 

[4737carlin]

So how do you think now having to spend £550-700m on a smaller stadium with no additional revenue streams in a less well connected location is going to benefit us in comparison?

No-one has said a new stadium guarantees success.... however ALL of those clubs you've mentioned went on to enjoy larger attendances and much increased revenues. Whether that has since been squandered or not is besides the point. We were offered that opportunity for a superior stadium than any of those for a fraction of the total cost in relative terms.

Larger attendances?? So what haha I'm sure the fans of those clubs ae happy they have no Premier League football to enjoy because having larger attendances makes up for it.
Our ground move failed, but we managed to maintain our Premier League status, every fan of everyone of those clubs would happily change places with us.

 

[4737carlin]

Is it an inferior location? Personally I think there is a lot more to work with down that side of the docks.

I mean yeah it would look nice next to town etc but it would be horrific to get in and out of. We would be one of many things at Kings Dock, at BMD we will basically rule the area. Will be interesting to see how the area builds up.

Anyone who thinks BMD is inferior to KD in terms of location has no understanding of planning for the future, spends little time in the city center, and has little business acumen

 

[Drico]

What games this from?

That wasn't from a game. That was the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet awaiting the results of the election of Sam Allardyce as General-Secretary.

 

[4737carlin]

I'm sorry mate but that last statement is like standing outside on a sunny day and arguing with a hundred people that the sky is black.

There are distinct tangibles to how that hurt us, the first is we would have had a stadium we would have paid off many years ago for starters instead of paying back 500 million starting from now. Increased revenue from the KD at a point when matchday income was a lot more important than it is now might have given us the tools to compete right at the sharp end during that following period where we were classed as best of the rest. Remember we didn't have a pot to pee in for ages due to being stuck at Goodison and having to take unfavourable loans and overdrafts creating a cycle of less and less money being available. KD could have done the opposite. We also would have had the second fully covered stadium in the country, that would have been massive on a publicity point alone, to be AHEAD of the curve once again like our motto suggests. Old Trafford and alike weren't that big at that time.

The part that is more speculative but nevertheless true is that buyers would have seen us as a much more desirable place to invest or buy out. We can't say for sure that Bill would have eventually sold to City's owners especially if we were up there competing for trophies, but you would think they would have been even more keen to buy us and the fact the stadium would have put our value at hundreds of millions instead of the tens, Kenwright might have thought I'll take it and ride off into the sunset with more capital for his day job.

It didn't damage us though, that's a fact, after the collapse of KD we actually moved forward as a club, enjoyed plenty of seasons of European football, worked very hard in the transfer market with clever deals and the squad improved.
Obviously it could of done more perhaps if we had gone KD but it's not a given as I've pointed out above with a list of teams who did move only to go backwards.
Even Arsenal stalled when they moved.
Not moving did nothing to harm us.

 

[Neiler]

Not mad for a soap box at all, I'm responding directly to your points. You've made a stance and cannot back it up. Repeatedly stating that it's your opinion is not an argument.... it's blind faith!

The article isn't some misplaced revelation now suddenly shedding light as new evidence.... it and several others have been around for nearly 20 years and form the major evidence for most Evertonian's long held views that you are arguing against. It completely contradicts all of your key points.

We were goung to be comfortably the largest stakeholder. One of our directors was going to own the company responsible for most of the other major operations. We would've held far more of the cards than Man City now does at the Etihad, which is 100% owned by Manchester City Council. What do you think the other stake holders could do to the largest and biggest income generating tenant, with the largest stake? Turn it into an ice rink? It's a nonsense argument.

The outline finances are also fully explained. The loan was an inhouse reverse mortgage which may (or may not) have affected the ownership structure and benefitted the Gregs and diluted some other board members.... so what? In the grand scheme of things it was a tiny amount, for massive reward. That was the key decider in the now well documented power struggle that ensued and denied the club the chance to really move forward. Leaving us running on a shoestring for years to come. Regardless, we have no need to speculate about any of that because all the figures and benefits are outlined and are indisputable.

When we then put that into the context of: lost opportunities and revenue streams since; plus the sale of practically every property asset meaning we now dont even own our training ground; the motives and wasted millions and lies supporting the Kirkby Debacle; and WHP nonsense; Loss of AGMs because these very questions and points were being made by shareholders, and your man couldn't answer them..... and ultimately leading to the point where we are now having to spend £550-700m to get a smaller stadium in an inferior location, you have the REASONS for my posting history.

Oh i know how it works mate, I've been that solider for to long - its soap boxing alight, trying to sniff out a platform for dogma - its all very transparent - i mean no personal offence by that, but you have to query a posting history that posts nothing about Everton then just popping at Bill - what that about, what's being represented and for what motivation and reason.

Disagree with all of that again mate - hold entirely the contrary view. Very poor deal for the wellbeing of the club overall, was a cracking stadium, but a very poor deal. I get it you like to think 49% is the majority stake, but its not i mean its simple Maths, collectively we could have been outvoted by the rest of the management company - so ultimately had no guarantees on the stadium. You can get into bed with Greg if you like, but owning 49% of something then selling it to someone else, for massive interest - was a poor poor deal and actually playing poker and risking the welbing of the club.

Like i say i dont agree with anything you say, its a pointless debate, because we are opposite end of spectrum - i disagree with your opinion, interpretation of past fact and analysis to be honest. I cant be any clearer then the reason ive given, your just repeating yourself rebutting them saying the same thing over five posts. Its pretty pointless, when i wont acknowledge its anything but reaching and dogma.

Bill would be a class poster on here, what he does to people is incredible, it triggers obsession almost and reality becomes spinny and disorientated and confirmation bias kicks in. All those years of missing revenue streams and then give a kicking to DK, the premise is the same - but im not going down that rabbit hole with you.

 

[Tom Hughes]

Larger attendances?? So what haha I'm sure the fans of those clubs ae happy they have no Premier League football to enjoy because having larger attendances makes up for it.
Our ground move failed, but we managed to maintain our Premier League status, every fan of everyone of those clubs would happily change places with us.

You are the master of the arse about face argument. All of those clubs are historically yoyo clubs regardless. They are probably thankful of the opportuniy to play in the top flight that their new stadium afforded them. Some for the first time in their history. The point is simple.... the board's job was to address our stadium issues to maxinise revenue and maintain our top flight status and medium/long term future at the same time. No-one except you is arguing that EFC doesn't need to do that! We were offered the deal of the century and missed so that club's owner could keep the trainset. As a consequence we have fallen behind all of our peer group who's match day incomes dwarf ours. We have won nothing for decades. We are now doing what we could've done 20 yrs ago for a fraction of the expense we're about to put on the club.

 

[Papa Shango]

The Kings Dock is superior on a few levels.

Never been a priority of mine, but if it's the post card waterfront aspect you're chasing, the city centre is a much more attractive and higher profile backdrop than next to a sewage plant in vauxhall.

Logistically it also wipes the floor with BMD, with all transport hubs and services on its doorstep. This offers single mode public transport access for fans in all parts of the city region.

The city centre comfortably copes with moving multiples of the stadium's proposed capacity every rush hr, as it is the focal point of the whole public transport and road network. It also has the greatest concentration of amenities to help absorb that process and accommodate any rush. BMD is right at the edge of that comfortable walking envelope and will need road closures and multiple additional services to support it. BMD's accessibility will hopefully improve on the back of the whole Liverpool waters scheme.... but it's by no means a certainty and in anycase could never match that of the actual city centre.

The logistics of KD are horrific. You have obviously not driven (drove?) up that way lately! I get the transport hubs for town are fairly near but its not a fun place to get to. There is a reason why new ground gets build away from busier areas rather than getting plonked in the middle of them.

Currently BMD is a wasteland in terms of logistics, Sandhills and one bus every blue moon down Regent Road but that will change once the ground is in place as there is room to build around the area unlike KD which is very enclosed and work there would be highly disruptive.

We are not just going to build BMD and then leave it there with nothing around it. The hope is that it expands to town centre by linking up that part of the docks to the Albert Dock by improving the wasteland in between as you say. Will be interesting to see the 10 streets area grow.

I think you are being a bit selective with the postcard thing! You can also say it is next to the Tobacco Warehouse and the five sided clock..

 

[Papa Shango]

I'm sorry mate but that last statement is like standing outside on a sunny day and arguing with a hundred people that the sky is black.

There are distinct tangibles to how that hurt us, the first is we would have had a stadium we would have paid off many years ago for starters instead of paying back 500 million starting from now. Increased revenue from the KD at a point when matchday income was a lot more important than it is now might have given us the tools to compete right at the sharp end during that following period where we were classed as best of the rest. Remember we didn't have a pot to pee in for ages due to being stuck at Goodison and having to take unfavourable loans and overdrafts creating a cycle of less and less money being available. KD could have done the opposite. We also would have had the second fully covered stadium in the country, that would have been massive on a publicity point alone, to be AHEAD of the curve once again like our motto suggests. Old Trafford and alike weren't that big at that time.

The part that is more speculative but nevertheless true is that buyers would have seen us as a much more desirable place to invest or buy out. We can't say for sure that Bill would have eventually sold to City's owners especially if we were up there competing for trophies, but you would think they would have been even more keen to buy us and the fact the stadium would have put our value at hundreds of millions instead of the tens, Kenwright might have thought I'll take it and ride off into the sunset with more capital for his day job.

A new stadium, like this one currently being built, guarantees nothing.

It may have changed things for the better, it may not have. History is littered with clubs who got new grounds and then did nothing afterwards, many struggled massively.

For every Manchester City (who got incredibly lucky by the way) there is a Southampton, Bolton, even an Arsenal who have not been the same since moving.

Keeping the balance between the stadium costs and the team is always a tough one, we absolutely would not have done that at that point in time I reckon.

 

[Papa Shango]

Anyone who thinks BMD is inferior to KD in terms of location has no understanding of planning for the future, spends little time in the city center, and has little business acumen

I think they both have their strengths and weaknesses but yeah theoretically BMD should be much easier logistics wise.

 

[Tom Hughes]

It didn't damage us though, that's a fact, after the collapse of KD we actually moved forward as a club, enjoyed plenty of seasons of European football, worked very hard in the transfer market with clever deals and the squad improved.
Obviously it could of done more perhaps if we had gone KD but it's not a given as I've pointed out above with a list of teams who did move only to go backwards.
Even Arsenal stalled when they moved.
Not moving did nothing to harm us.

Some of the clubs you mentioned have enjoyed the greatest years of their histories. Even going by your simplistic league placings approach a "Stalled" Arsenal I think they've enjoyed higher placings than EFC in every season and have enjoyed many times more European games. We're nowhere near them in terms of success or income. At the beginning of the premiership we matched them.

 

[Tom Hughes]

A new stadium, like this one currently being built, guarantees nothing.

It may have changed things for the better, it may not have. History is littered with clubs who got new grounds and then did nothing afterwards, many struggled massively.

For every Manchester City (who got incredibly lucky by the way) there is a Southampton, Bolton, even an Arsenal who have not been the same since moving.

Keeping the balance between the stadium costs and the team is always a tough one, we absolutely would not have done that at that point in time I reckon.

If we couldn't make the books balance for a larger stadium, with more boxes and more additional income streams costing us just £30m..... how are we going to do it with a football only stadium costing £550-700m at the bottom of the FFP league?