Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Everton takeover rumours

Will anything come of today's buyer/investor news?


  • Total voters
    495
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think 225m is a fair assessment in todays financial climate
It's a strange one this. Partly I would agree for a number of reasons, but for other justifiable factors it personally seems overly excessive.

According to Deloitte, we are apparently' the 20th richest club in the world. Add to that some of the talent in our squad and the new TV deal.

We're a very stable platform in terms of the reliability of our league positions, including ventures into Europe. Surely that adds value to the club?

On the other hand though, we need a new stadium, generate little non-TV revenue and have sold many our tangible assets such as Finch Farm.

So to be fair there is evidence to argue each point of view; the real value of the club is only how much someone is wiling to spend.

There is also the argument that many of the board are not actual Evertonians. They invested in the club for their own personal, financial reasons.

Apart from Kenwright, it would be fair to say that the likes of Earl and Green are in it for a profit. That may be hard to swallow, but that's life.

Many people argue that they should sell up on the cheap so that it benefits the club. But what does the club owe them? It's purely business.

Personally, I think it is excessive (as will many others) especially when you consider that any buyer would then need to help finance a stadium.

That's a huge potential outlay when you compare the actual financial benefits that a stadium will bring to the new owners in the long run.

So basically... £225m seems excessive when you consider future requirements. However, maybe that's just the new going rate.
 
Not necessarily all paid off yesterday, just discharge notices submitted. They could have been paid off for months and yesterday might just be admin housekeeping but if nothing else it tidies things up incase of imminent due diligence.
Thank you for backing up the contents of my previous posts.
I also gave a brief synopsis of what the remaining charges were.
2 relate to the bond regarding ticket sales
1 is J G. Funding
1 Barclays right of offset of balances of accounts held with them, effectively an all monies debenture
1 Barclays floating charge over assets.

It is almost certain that no loans were paid off yesterday.
Cheers
 
It's already been established that Heineman & Illig aren't the guys involved; its people with connections to them.

I wouldn't hang on every word Heineman says; he's probably enjoying the attention. He's a businessman & it raises his profile/strokes his ego by being part of this story.
 
Thank you for backing up the contents of my previous posts.
I also gave a brief synopsis of what the remaining charges were.
2 relate to the bond regarding ticket sales
1 is J G. Funding
1 Barclays right of offset of balances of accounts held with them, effectively an all monies debenture
1 Barclays floating charge over assets.

It is almost certain that no loans were paid off yesterday.
Cheers

As @Thuck ma Baws wrote though, it's still tidying up the books ahead of potential due dilligence.
 

Could it be the case that despite all the hype that goes with football, owning a club rarely brings a profit for anyone, except the select few who are more brands than football clubs,
the best case scenario really is a billionaire fan. Any investment fund/ corporate driven group are only interested in the fiscal side and equilibrium. Add to that how saturated the market actually is and you have a recipe for disaster right there. Not to mention the various cases of these owners coming in and going against the fans,who they see as nothing more than consumers. The glaziers, the legendary hicks and gillette, randy lerner etc

it works in the US because they have a more consumer based outlook on sport, they call clubs franchises and in some cases relocate them. This will never happen in football but it shows the mindset of the people in question.
 
initially this thread dismisses this as just another story ... (presumably) subsequently someone has posted something that gives the story some credibility, the theorists also come out to play too. The passion and hope that so many of us hold for the club is heartwarming ... deny or otherwise we've been here before over the years.

The forthcoming AGM, the same old hollow promises that we are still looking for a buyer, 'financial smoke and mirrors' re: the loans ... is it all relevant that those responsible for media comms returned from vacation on Wednesday ?

I wish I could be optimistic and more positive about this but I find it difficult to believe anymore as do 72% who cast a vote.
 

Could it be the case that despite all the hype that goes with football, owning a club rarely brings a profit for anyone
Bill and fellow investors tenure has been all about proving that wrong.....buy very cheap.......commit no further finance......sell very dear to whoever matches the astronomical valuation
 
It's a strange one this. Partly I would agree for a number of reasons, but for other justifiable factors it personally seems overly excessive.

According to Deloitte, we are apparently' the 20th richest club in the world. Add to that some of the talent in our squad and the new TV deal.

We're a very stable platform in terms of the reliability of our league positions, including ventures into Europe. Surely that adds value to the club?

On the other hand though, we need a new stadium, generate little non-TV revenue and have sold many our tangible assets such as Finch Farm.

So to be fair there is evidence to argue each point of view; the real value of the club is only how much someone is wiling to spend.

There is also the argument that many of the board are not actual Evertonians. They invested in the club for their own personal, financial reasons.

Apart from Kenwright, it would be fair to say that the likes of Earl and Green are in it for a profit. That may be hard to swallow, but that's life.

Many people argue that they should sell up on the cheap so that it benefits the club. But what does the club owe them? It's purely business.

Personally, I think it is excessive (as will many others) especially when you consider that any buyer would then need to help finance a stadium.

That's a huge potential outlay when you compare the actual financial benefits that a stadium will bring to the new owners in the long run.

So basically... £225m seems excessive when you consider future requirements. However, maybe that's just the new going rate.

You mention a new stadium, little tangible assets and little non tv revenue, and also mention the stability of the club. Could it be argued that the stability which has been created is the bedrock on which a new stadium, the extra income, etc, become potentially very profitable in the medium and long term, with the right owners, with capital to invest inn the right areas? Growth running alongside continued success on the pitch , which is always essential.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top