Everton "special" Talksport 9:00pm Monday 10th Aug 2015

[Ruairi77]

All I took from last night is:

The Blue Union are a non-productive, history-obsessed band of beats who, when given an opportunity to air their frustrations and concerns at the topic at hand, represent the club as they say they do, instead decided to bring up Kirby, Bill's health and bog-all else.

Stan Collymore had absolutely nothing of worth to say. Kudos to the one a few years ago, where he somehow did what the ECHO are unable to do and get some sort of ball-park figure for the value of the club to the current shareholders. This time he had NOTHING and instead tried to simply bait the officials, even Kenwright himself, into calling into the show. It was absolutely embarrassing.

That saggers bloke said right at the beginning, "let's just have the facts tonight" yet decided to accept call, with respect, a bunch of everton fans who know nothing about the current on-goings behind the doors of the club.

Last point to the blues and to Collymore regarding Everton's transfer business:

Martinez said back in May:



How much more transparent can he be? He's not stupid, there is no point in saying last week "we 3 need players" if we are skint and can't afford them. He knows who he wants and those players may only be available on deadline day for a whole host of reasons.

You're right, Martinez is doing what he said but I think the on pitch activities paper over a lot of off pitch cracks and after the first half against Watford I think a lot of fans started to see beyond the on pitch exploits. There is a feeling that this team might not perform so well, and if it doesn't, the board has put no structure in place to stop the slide. In fact, they seem to have done the opposite. So, yea, Martinez was pretty clear, it's just that the bigger picture is far murkier.

 

[davek]

All I took from last night is:

The Blue Union are a non-productive, history-obsessed band of beats who, when given an opportunity to air their frustrations and concerns at the topic at hand, represent the club as they say they do, instead decided to bring up Kirby, Bill's health and bog-all else.

Stan Collymore had absolutely nothing of worth to say. Kudos to the one a few years ago, where he somehow did what the ECHO are unable to do and get some sort of ball-park figure for the value of the club to the current shareholders. This time he had NOTHING and instead tried to simply bait the officials, even Kenwright himself, into calling into the show. It was absolutely embarrassing.

That saggers bloke said right at the beginning, "let's just have the facts tonight" yet decided to accept call, with respect, a bunch of everton fans who know nothing about the current on-goings behind the doors of the club.

Last point to the blues and to Collymore regarding Everton's transfer business:

Martinez said back in May:



How much more transparent can he be? He's not stupid, there is no point in saying last week "we 3 need players" if we are skint and can't afford them. He knows who he wants and those players may only be available on deadline day for a whole host of reasons.

Blue Union: the KEIOC officers in that (Dave Kelly being one) helped stop a calamity befalling this club. So although it came across as a rehash of old battles last night and was maybe not the best time to stress that point, they deserve a lot of respect.

Martinez quote: there's late, then there's too late. We are hurtling towards the latter and the season will be off to a terrible start. I cant believe Martinez signed up for a final week bargain hunt, not when his job is on the line.

 

[atrottel]

@the esk

Although I understand the concept of injecting capital into a business, I'm not really sure what the business rationale is for doing it in the case of Everton (as opposed to the fan rationale).

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the board members bought their shares for a total of xx million (say 50 million). The club now has an independent market worth (note not any presumed asking price but what it is worth) of, say, 150 million. At the moment therefore if all the shareholders cash out they receive a profit of 3x their initial investment.

IF they inject capital into the club of, say, 150 million to build a new stadium, they therefore reasonably have to expect that this will increase the value of the club to 150 million (what it is worth without that investment) plus the 150 million (investment) plus a reasonable profit on the 150 million investment (as a return for risk and using that money when it could have been placed elsewhere).

So we now have a notional worth for the club of 300 million + say 15 million.

Is a new or improved stadium (as opposed to increasing TV revenue, which currently just 'happens' without investor involvement) ever going to increase the worth of the club to that amount?

It's a similar argument to building a new stadium/revamping Goodison anyway. How long is it going to take for the costs to be covered by increased revenue? Again, given the size of proposed stadia and the size of potential crowds and the resistance of local fans to ticket price increases, the purely financial case for that investment is questionable.

So we have a board, where the main financial backers (Earl plus anyone who may or may not have fronted up any of Bill's cash) are currently looking an a steady increase in the capital value of their investment because of the growing amount of general Premier League marketing revenue and TV rights revenue which will happen whether they are active or whether they sit on their hands.

Do they double their investment and exposure in the club - by the 150 million investment - to provide a marginal and arguable increase in value in the total investment?

So that is solution a) or b) - board invest or outside investor comes in with capital injection.

Solution c) is that the board sell up and new investors take over. Again, what is the rationale for the board to sell? They are sitting on a healthy increase on their initial investment. The only way it currently looks like going is up. The risk to that investment has been tiny over the last few seasons and, even at a minimal level of revenue investment in wages and players, it looks like relegation is little more than an unlikely scenario.

So the threats to their investment would come from a drying up of TV revenue (possible but unlikely), relegation (again possible but unlikely) or a minor hit to revenue from a highly unlikely scenario of 35,000 fans following davek's example and staying at home on match day.

What possible inducement is there for a change in the current situation (outside a Manchester City or West Ham scenario)?

That's why I have to agree with the dismaying conclusion that the esk came to when asked: the current state of affairs will continue as it has been (because there is no valid business reason for the board to act in any other way).

(My economics exams were a very long time ago, so I may well be misunderstanding some vital aspect of capital or revenue or return on investment!)

 

[Chang Elephant]

The only way to deal with these people is not to deal with these people.

Yep, it's like the bank teller attempting dialogue with the guy holding the sawn off shotgun

The board consists of businessmen who are unlikely to worry about damage to the reputation. So long as they think their asset is appreciating courtesy of the TV money, I very much doubt they give a damn about a bit of bad publicity.

Precisely

 

[mkrudden]

Blue Union: the KEIOC officers in that (Dave Kelly being one) helped stop a calamity befalling this club. So although it came across as a rehash of old battles last night and was maybe not the best time to stress that point, they deserve a lot of respect.

Martinez quote: there's late, then there's too late. We are hurtling towards the latter and the season will be off to a terrible start. I cant believe Martinez signed up for a final week bargain hunt, not when his job is on the line.

Right but let's just use a random player as an example. Let's use Sergi Roberto.

Let's say that he's this playmaker that RM states so clearly he feels the team needs. RM thinks he's exactly the player who can do the job we need fullfilling, and Barcelona say "he's available for £5million". Bargain, RM thinks.

Only stumbling block is that Barcelona really want, I dunno, Vidal (poor example as he's going to Bayern) but haven't been able to negotiate a deal. Barcelona can't let Sergi Roberto go until they've signed Vidal. They've said to Everton, come back in the last week when we will have to make a decision one way or the other, and it'll likely be that you'll get Sergi Roberto anyway, but right now is not a good time.

It may seem a ridiculous example, but the point i'm making is that there may be legitimate reasons for RM stating he is leaving it late and following it through.

If we get to September and he hasn't brought in players, or the ones he has reek of panic, then i'll grab a pitch fork with you Dave and off we go. But until then it is absolutely ridiculous to start berating a board on this specific issue.

 

[Tramps_mate]

Another good call just been on then..

 

[The Esk]

@the esk

Although I understand the concept of injecting capital into a business, I'm not really sure what the business rationale is for doing it in the case of Everton (as opposed to the fan rationale).

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the board members bought their shares for a total of xx million (say 50 million). The club now has an independent market worth (note not any presumed asking price but what it is worth) of, say, 150 million. At the moment therefore if all the shareholders cash out they receive a profit of 3x their initial investment.

IF they inject capital into the club of, say, 150 million to build a new stadium, they therefore reasonably have to expect that this will increase the value of the club to 150 million (what it is worth without that investment) plus the 150 million (investment) plus a reasonable profit on the 150 million investment (as a return for risk and using that money when it could have been placed elsewhere).

So we now have a notional worth for the club of 300 million + say 15 million.

Is a new or improved stadium (as opposed to increasing TV revenue, which currently just 'happens' without investor involvement) ever going to increase the worth of the club to that amount?

It's a similar argument to building a new stadium/revamping Goodison anyway. How long is it going to take for the costs to be covered by increased revenue? Again, given the size of proposed stadia and the size of potential crowds and the resistance of local fans to ticket price increases, the purely financial case for that investment is questionable.

So we have a board, where the main financial backers (Earl plus anyone who may or may not have fronted up any of Bill's cash) are currently looking an a steady increase in the capital value of their investment because of the growing amount of general Premier League marketing revenue and TV rights revenue which will happen whether they are active or whether they sit on their hands.

Do they double their investment and exposure in the club - by the 150 million investment - to provide a marginal and arguable increase in value in the total investment?

So that is solution a) or b) - board invest or outside investor comes in with capital injection.

Solution c) is that the board sell up and new investors take over. Again, what is the rationale for the board to sell? They are sitting on a healthy increase on their initial investment. The only way it currently looks like going is up. The risk to that investment has been tiny over the last few seasons and, even at a minimal level of revenue investment in wages and players, it looks like relegation is little more than an unlikely scenario.

So the threats to their investment would come from a drying up of TV revenue (possible but unlikely), relegation (again possible but unlikely) or a minor hit to revenue from a highly unlikely scenario of 35,000 fans following davek's example and staying at home on match day.

What possible inducement is there for a change in the current situation (outside a Manchester City or West Ham scenario)?

That's why I have to agree with the dismaying conclusion that the esk came to when asked: the current state of affairs will continue as it has been (because there is no valid business reason for the board to act in any other way).

(My economics exams were a very long time ago, so I may well be misunderstanding some vital aspect of capital or revenue or return on investment!)

Am out currently will reply later

 

[varnish]

So would we accept relegation to the championship if it meant Kenwright and co cashed out?

 

[micknick]

Has anyone got the listen again link- I cant find it on talksport website.

 

[Bungle]

Has anyone got the listen again link- I cant find it on talksport website.

https://mobile.twitter.com/stancollymore

Link looks like its on his last tweet

 

[deipnosophist]

Agree with that in principle but I think the reality is it becomes so much harder to attract the kind of rubber we need when the garage the vehicle is housed in looks antiquated in comparison to other suitors.

That Shaquiri bloke, for instance, was probably very impressed with Stoke's new stadium and he signed for a club which would have had little or no chance of buying him if he had fetched up at the old Victoria Ground.

It isn't even the ground itself so much.....it is the way it is landlocked in the midst of row houses which were built before WW1 or shortly after.

Nothing about the infrastructure of our club seems fit for purpose in the 21st century.

...well put, I like the metaphor. And I do not disagree with your line of thought. My proposal, whereby fresh capital is directed toward getting a winning team on the pitch is an initial step to breaking our current 'running on a treadmill' (and going nowhere) situation. It should not be viewed in isolation from the fact that goals toward infrastructural enhancements (fixed assets) need to be established. Unfortunately, neither of these things appears to be happening and we remain on the treadmill, and are falling behind our competitors. It is frustrating to admit, but I cannot see anything changing any time soon.

 

[Woolly Blue]

Has anyone got the listen again link- I cant find it on talksport website.

Threadmarked down at the bottom of the page mate.

Dunno why I bothered really.

 

[Jayhow15]

@the esk

Although I understand the concept of injecting capital into a business, I'm not really sure what the business rationale is for doing it in the case of Everton (as opposed to the fan rationale).

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the board members bought their shares for a total of xx million (say 50 million). The club now has an independent market worth (note not any presumed asking price but what it is worth) of, say, 150 million. At the moment therefore if all the shareholders cash out they receive a profit of 3x their initial investment.

IF they inject capital into the club of, say, 150 million to build a new stadium, they therefore reasonably have to expect that this will increase the value of the club to 150 million (what it is worth without that investment) plus the 150 million (investment) plus a reasonable profit on the 150 million investment (as a return for risk and using that money when it could have been placed elsewhere).

So we now have a notional worth for the club of 300 million + say 15 million.

Is a new or improved stadium (as opposed to increasing TV revenue, which currently just 'happens' without investor involvement) ever going to increase the worth of the club to that amount?

It's a similar argument to building a new stadium/revamping Goodison anyway. How long is it going to take for the costs to be covered by increased revenue? Again, given the size of proposed stadia and the size of potential crowds and the resistance of local fans to ticket price increases, the purely financial case for that investment is questionable.

So we have a board, where the main financial backers (Earl plus anyone who may or may not have fronted up any of Bill's cash) are currently looking an a steady increase in the capital value of their investment because of the growing amount of general Premier League marketing revenue and TV rights revenue which will happen whether they are active or whether they sit on their hands.

Do they double their investment and exposure in the club - by the 150 million investment - to provide a marginal and arguable increase in value in the total investment?

So that is solution a) or b) - board invest or outside investor comes in with capital injection.

Solution c) is that the board sell up and new investors take over. Again, what is the rationale for the board to sell? They are sitting on a healthy increase on their initial investment. The only way it currently looks like going is up. The risk to that investment has been tiny over the last few seasons and, even at a minimal level of revenue investment in wages and players, it looks like relegation is little more than an unlikely scenario.

So the threats to their investment would come from a drying up of TV revenue (possible but unlikely), relegation (again possible but unlikely) or a minor hit to revenue from a highly unlikely scenario of 35,000 fans following davek's example and staying at home on match day.

What possible inducement is there for a change in the current situation (outside a Manchester City or West Ham scenario)?

That's why I have to agree with the dismaying conclusion that the esk came to when asked: the current state of affairs will continue as it has been (because there is no valid business reason for the board to act in any other way).

(My economics exams were a very long time ago, so I may well be misunderstanding some vital aspect of capital or revenue or return on investment!)

The TV revenue isn't drying up though and merchandising deals and other added revenues and diversity are on the rise season by season, as the debt is gradually coming down supposedly. The question is, why are we being outspent, outbid, out-everything by newly promoted clubs ? If its not the board its the manager but there needs to be some "transparency" !

 

[Khalekan]

...well put, I like the metaphor. And I do not disagree with your line of thought. My proposal, whereby fresh capital is directed toward getting a winning team on the pitch is an initial step to breaking our current 'running on a treadmill' (and going nowhere) situation. It should not be viewed in isolation from the fact that goals toward infrastructural enhancements (fixed assets) need to be established. Unfortunately, neither of these things appears to be happening and we remain on the treadmill, and are falling behind our competitors. It is frustrating to admit, but I cannot see anything changing any time soon.

Alas, neither can I.

In fact, I am a bit depressed now as all the talk over the past twenty four hours has finally convinced me that our board don't mind treading water on the field as long as they personally can line their pockets with the TV dough.

 

[atrottel]

The question is, why are we being outspent, outbid, out-everything by newly promoted clubs ?

For one thing, newly-promoted clubs tend to have a lower cost base than established upper-half (I know!) PL clubs. So the increase in PL money for the seasons that they are eligible is more of a bonanza. The more they become established, the more their costs tend to rise (on wages and transfers) to match their revenue.

One easy answer is that you raise working capital with debt (as you do if you decide to go for a mortgage). Or you have an owner who is willing to inject capital to risk losing it in the bet that the capital will result in PL longevity. The risk/reward is greater than with a club that is already in the PL.